772512.pdf
[36.61 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:

Adobe Reader

TIP U-5507 Page i February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension
City of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project No. STPDA-1003(112)
WBS No. 45477
TIP Project No. U-5507
Sediment and Erosion Control
Impacts to soils will be minimized through measures detailed in the North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Regulations (15A NCAC 04B) and local ordinances to limit soil loss, erosion, and the
possibility of contamination during constructions. Disturbed soils will be stabilized with native seed
mixes appropriate for the existing conditions during and after construction is completed.
Prosperity Presbyterian Church Cemetery
Any ground disturbance in the vicinity of the Prosperity Presbyterian Church cemetery will be carefully
monitored for unmarked graves. Should any graves unmarked graves be encountered the City will
follow the appropriate steps to ensure compliance with of the North Carolina General Statues (G.S.),
including G.S. 14-148 (Defacing or desecrating grave sites), 14-149 (Desecrating, plowing over or
covering up graves; desecrating human remains), Chapter 65, Article 12, Part 4 (Removal of Graves), and
Chapter 70, Article 3 (The Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act).
Residential Relocations
Several measures will be employed due to the impacts and relocations associated with the Forest Park
Mobile Home Community (MHC).
The City of Charlotte will provide connections to the City sewer system. The sewer system
within the MHC property will be designed/sized to serve the number of permitted mobile homes
at the time the system is designed. (This number is currently 66 mobile homes.)
The City of Charlotte will construct a four-foot chain link or decorative metal fence along the NW
Arc frontage with gated openings approximately every 200 feet so residents can access the new
roadway’s planned sidewalks, parallel on-street parking, and bike lanes.
The City of Charlotte/Mecklenburg County will assist residents within the MHC with the future
requirement to change their address. A unified address signage system for each mobile home
will be included for enhanced identification within the MHC.
TIP U-5507 Page ii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Where existing mobile homes cannot be relocated, new mobile homes will be provided where
eligible relocatees are to remain in the Forest Park MHC. Additional cost above that allowed
under the Uniform Relocation Act will be borne by the City of Charlotte.
The City of Charlotte will continue enhanced outreach during future project development
including translation and interpretation services for the Forest Park MHC, consistent with
Environmental Justice principles. Spanish transcribers should also be provided for additional
public meetings, including the project’s public hearing.
Noise Sensitive Areas
Where and when feasible, construction activities that produce extremely loud noises will be scheduled
during times of the day when such noises would create as minimal disturbance as possible. Also, low-cost
and easily implemented construction noise control measures may be incorporated into the project
plans and specifications. These measures include, but are not limited to, work-hour limits, equipment
exhaust muffler requirements, haul-road locations, elimination of “tail gate banging”, ambient-sensitive
backup alarms, construction noise complaint mechanisms, and consistent and transparent community
communication.
If construction noise activities must occur during context-sensitive hours in the vicinity of noise-sensitive
areas, discrete construction noise abatement measures including, but not limited to portable noise
barriers and / or other equipment-quieting devices may be considered.
Air Quality
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition or other operations would be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning would be in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Also during construction, measures would be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents.
Soil and Groundwater Investigations
If the project requires right of way acquisitions from a property noted within the Environmental
Resources Database, the City will perform soil and groundwater assessments prior to acquisition.
TIP U-5507 Page iii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary .................................................................................................................................................... xi
I. Description of Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 1
A. History and Description .................................................................................................................... 1
B. Project Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 2
C. Funding and Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 2
II. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................ 2
A. Summary of Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 2
B. Description of Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 3
1. Functional Classification ............................................................................................................... 3
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility and Roadway Cross Section ........................................... 3
3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................ 3
4. Right of Way and Access Control .................................................................................................. 3
5. Speed Limits ................................................................................................................................. 3
6. Intersections and Interchanges..................................................................................................... 3
7. Railroads....................................................................................................................................... 4
8. Structures ..................................................................................................................................... 4
9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways ......................................................................... 4
a. Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................................................ 4
b. Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................................. 4
c. Greenways ............................................................................................................................... 4
10. Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 4
11. School Bus Usage ...................................................................................................................... 5
12. Airports .................................................................................................................................... 5
13. Public Transportation ................................................................................................................ 5
a. Bus Service ............................................................................................................................... 5
b. Rail Service ............................................................................................................................... 5
c. Light Rail Service ....................................................................................................................... 5
14. Park and Ride Lots ..................................................................................................................... 5
15. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ................................................................................... 5
TIP U-5507 Page iv February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
16. Lighting ..................................................................................................................................... 5
17. Noise Abatement ...................................................................................................................... 5
18. Emergency Services................................................................................................................... 5
C. Traffic Volumes and Traffic Carrying Capacity .................................................................................. 6
1. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 6
2. Existing and Future Levels of Service ............................................................................................ 6
a. General Information ................................................................................................................. 6
b. Existing Conditions Levels of Service (Year 2010) ..................................................................... 6
c. Future Levels of Service (No Build Scenario, Design Year 2035) .............................................. 6
d. Future Levels of Service Build Scenario (Existing roadway plus the NW Arc, Design Year
2035) ................................................................................................................................................ 7
e. Widen Existing Roadway Alternative ........................................................................................ 7
D. Crash History .................................................................................................................................... 8
E. Transportation and Land Use Plans .................................................................................................. 9
1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 9
2. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program................................................................. 10
3. Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) ........................................ 10
a. 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan .................................................................................... 10
b. Thoroughfare Plan .................................................................................................................. 10
c. (Draft) Comprehensive Transportation Plan ........................................................................... 10
4. Charlotte Department of Transportation ................................................................................... 10
a. Transportation Action Plan (TAP) ........................................................................................... 10
b. Connectivity Policy Statements............................................................................................... 10
c. Urban Street Design Guidelines .............................................................................................. 10
d. Bicycle Plan ............................................................................................................................. 11
5. Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) ......................................................................................... 11
a. 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan.......................................................................................... 11
6. Land Use Plans ............................................................................................................................ 11
a. Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan / Northeast District Plan ............................................. 11
b. Prosperity/Hucks Area Plan .................................................................................................... 11
F. Benefits of the Proposed Project .................................................................................................... 11
III. Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 12
TIP U-5507 Page v February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 12
1. Travel Demand Management (TDM) .......................................................................................... 12
2. Mass Transit ............................................................................................................................... 12
3. Transportation System Management (TSM)............................................................................... 12
B. "No-Build" Alternative .................................................................................................................... 13
C. Widen Existing Prosperity Church Road ......................................................................................... 13
D. New Location Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 13
E. Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 16
IV. Proposed Improvements ................................................................................................................ 17
A. Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 17
B. Roadway Cross Section and Alignment ........................................................................................... 17
C. Right of Way and Access Control .................................................................................................... 18
D. Speed Limit ..................................................................................................................................... 18
E. Design Speed .................................................................................................................................. 18
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions ........................................................................................................ 18
G. Intersections/Interchanges ............................................................................................................. 18
H. Service Roads ................................................................................................................................. 18
I. Railroad Crossings ........................................................................................................................... 18
J. Structures ....................................................................................................................................... 18
K. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................... 19
L. Utilities ........................................................................................................................................... 19
M. Landscaping .................................................................................................................................... 19
N. Noise Barriers ................................................................................................................................. 19
V. Probable Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ................................................................... 19
A. Natural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 20
1. Physical Resources ...................................................................................................................... 20
a. Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 20
b. Water Resources ..................................................................................................................... 21
2. Biotic Resources .......................................................................................................................... 22
a. Terrestrial Communities ......................................................................................................... 22
b. Terrestrial Wildlife .................................................................................................................. 23
c. Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................................... 24
TIP U-5507 Page vi February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
d. Invasive Species....................................................................................................................... 24
3. Jurisdictional Topics .................................................................................................................... 25
a. Clean Water Act Waters of the United States ........................................................................ 25
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects ............................................................................................. 26
c. Clean Water Act Permits ......................................................................................................... 26
d. Construction Moratoria .......................................................................................................... 26
e. N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules................................................................................................... 26
f. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ............................................................ 27
g. Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 27
h. Endangered Species Act Protected Species ............................................................................ 27
i. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ........................................................................... 28
j. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ............................................................................ 28
B. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 29
1. Compliance Guidelines................................................................................................................ 29
2. Historic Architectural Resources ................................................................................................. 29
3. Archaeological Resources ........................................................................................................... 29
C. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources .......................................................................................... 30
1. Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................................................................. 30
2. Section 6(f) Resources ................................................................................................................. 30
D. Community Impact Assessment ..................................................................................................... 30
1. Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 31
2. Key Community Characteristics .................................................................................................. 31
a. Geographic Location ............................................................................................................... 31
b. Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 31
c. Business Activity and Employment Centers ............................................................................ 32
d. Public facilities, Schools, and Institutions ............................................................................... 32
e. Present and Future Zoning ...................................................................................................... 33
f. Land Use and Development Plans .......................................................................................... 33
g. Transportation Improvement Plans ........................................................................................ 33
h. Natural Resources ................................................................................................................... 34
3. Key Direct Community Impacts ................................................................................................... 34
4. Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 36
TIP U-5507 Page vii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 38
E. Relocations ..................................................................................................................................... 39
F. Title VI and Environmental Justice .................................................................................................. 40
1. Affected Population and Comparative Impacts .......................................................................... 40
2. Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 40
3. Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 41
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 43
H. Farmland Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 43
I. Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 43
1. Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................................................................... 44
2. North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy ........................ 45
3. Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................................................................. 46
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ............................................................................ 46
5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours .................................................................................. 47
6. Construction Noise ...................................................................................................................... 48
7. Summary .................................................................................................................................... 49
J. Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 49
K. Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................................... 51
VI. Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ................................................................................ 52
A. Agency Coordination ....................................................................................................................... 52
B. Public Involvement......................................................................................................................... 53
C. Public Hearing ................................................................................................................................ 55
VII. References Cited ............................................................................................................................. 55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Direct Project Impacts .......................................................................................... xii
Table 2 Summary of Forecast Volumes and Capacity Analysis ............................................................... 8
Table 3 Crash Frequency by Intersection ................................................................................................ 8
Table 4 Crash Frequency by Crash Type (2008-2011) ............................................................................. 9
Table 5 Alternative Alignments Comparison ......................................................................................... 15
Table 6 Right of Way and Construction Cost Comparison .................................................................... 16
TIP U-5507 Page viii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Table 7 Soil Types in the Study Area ..................................................................................................... 20
Table 8 Streams in the Study Area ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 9 Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area ............................................................. 21
Table 10 Natural Community Impacts .................................................................................................... 23
Table 11 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area and Anticipated Impacts ............. 25
Table 12 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area and Anticipated Impacts ........... 26
Table 13 Federally Protected Species in Mecklenburg County ............................................................... 28
Table 14 Population Trends for State, County, and Demographic Study Area (2000-2010) .................. 31
Table 15 Employment Projections .......................................................................................................... 32
Table 16 Summary of Community Impacts ............................................................................................. 35
Table 17 Summary of Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement for the Forest Park MHC ...................... 38
Table 18 Summary of Relocations ........................................................................................................... 39
Table 19 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria .............................................................................................. 45
Table 20 NCDOT “Substantial Increase” Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................... 46
Table 21 Traffic Noise Impact Summary ................................................................................................. 47
Table 22 Potential Sources of Contamination within the Study Area ..................................................... 51
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Location Map
Figure 3 – Study Area
Figure 4 – Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan
Figure 5 – New Location Alternative Alignments
Figure 6 – Alignments for Detailed Study
Figure 7 – Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative
Figure 8 – NW Arc Typical Sections
Figure 9 – Ridge Road Typical Sections
Figure 10 – USGS Quadrangles and FEMA Floodplains
Figure 11 – NRCS Soils
Figure 12 – Jurisdictional Features
Figure 13 – Demographic Study Area
Figure 14 – Forest Park Mobile Home Community
Figure 15 – NCDOT Indirect Screening and Land Use Scenario Assessment
Figure 16 – Potential Environmental Conditions
TIP U-5507 Page ix February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Scoping Letter Responses
Appendix B – Scientific Nomenclature
Appendix C – USFWS Section 7 Correspondence
Appendix D – Section 106 NC HPO Correspondence
Appendix E – NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
Appendix F – Agency Comments
TIP U-5507 Page x February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
SUMMARY
TYPE OF ACTION
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, an
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed improvements and relocation of
Prosperity Church Road near the City of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. An EA is
prepared when the significance of impacts of a transportation project is uncertain. This EA discloses the
project benefits and environmental impacts to the public and to other local, state, and federal agencies
to obtain their comments on the proposed action and assist the NCDOT and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) in the decision-making process. If at any point in the process of preparing the
EA, it is discovered that the project would result in significant impacts, an Environmental Impact
Statement would be prepared. If after completing the EA, it is determined that there are no significant
impacts associated with the project, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared,
addressing comments received on the EA from the public, and local, state, and federal agencies.
The content of this EA conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, which
provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA. The FHWA and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are lead agencies for the proposed action.
Description of Proposed Action
The City of Charlotte proposes to relocate Prosperity Church Road on new location from the future I-485
interchange/service road system, roughly 0.7 mile to existing Prosperity Church Road and continuing
north approximately 0.4 mile along the existing road to Eastfield Road. A connection to the existing
stub-out of Ridge Road to the east and an extension of Ridge Road west to Goldenfield Drive are also
part of this project. The project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2012-2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as U-5507. The project is included in the
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) 2035 Long Range Transportation
Plan and their Thoroughfare Plan adopted in 2004.
Over time the project has been referenced by many different names such as the Northwest Arc of the I-
485 Prosperity Church Road Interchange, the Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension,
Relocated Prosperity Church Road, and Northwest Arc to name a few. This document considers the
official project name to be the Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension (shortened to NW
Arc in this document).
Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion on existing Prosperity Church Road by
creating a thoroughfare roadway network as identified through existing land use and transportation
plans for the area.
TIP U-5507 Page xi February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Project Cost, Schedule and Funding
The project is funded partially through Surface Transportation Program – Direct Apportionment (STP-DA)
in the amount of $4.8 million with the remainder being covered by City of Charlotte bonds. At this
time only the NW Arc and the extension of Ridge Road to the east are funded. Ridge Road from the NW
Arc west to Goldenfield Drive and comprehensive improvements to existing Prosperity Church Road
north of the NW Arc are not currently funded. Design and right of way acquisition are funded in Fiscal
Year (FY) 2013 and construction is funded in FY 2014.
Cost Estimate (prepared by City of Charlotte June 13, 2011):
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension (NW Arc) and Related Roadways
Roadway Segment Construction* Right of Way Mitigation Total
NW Arc $6,127,940 $1,930,000 $100,000 $8,157,940
Ridge Road West $1,480,000 $0 $0 $1,480,000
Ridge Road East $1,982,000 $110,000 $0 $2,092,000
Total $9,589,940 $2,040,000 $100,000 $11,729,940
*Includes Engineering, Survey, Administration Geotechnical and Utility Relocation
Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered:
• Alternate Modes of Transportation
• Travel Demand Management (TDM)
• Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
• Widen Existing Roadway Alternative
• New Location Alternative(s)
• No-Build Alternative
Only the new location alternative(s) meets the Purpose and Need for the project. The existing roadway
could not be improved sufficiently to work effectively with the I-485 interchange and the other
alternatives would not provide the needed capacity. Widening the existing roadway would not be
compatible with land use plans for the area that have been in place since 1999. Multiple new location
alternative alignments were considered to derive an optimum location.
Summary of Environmental Effects
The project would result in the displacement of approximately eight residences. It crosses one stream,
and would impact approximately 64 linear feet of stream and 0.85 acre of wetlands at 2 locations. No
resources eligible for the National Register or listed historic properties were identified in the project
Study Area. One archaeological site and one cemetery were identified within the project Study Area but
not within the preferred alternative right of way. Five hazardous material sites have been identified in
or near the project Study Area.
TIP U-5507 Page xii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Four federally-protected species are listed for the Mecklenburg County. These are Smooth coneflower,
Carolina heelsplitter, Michaux’s sumac, and Schweinitz’s sunflower. The project should have no effect
to any federally listed species.
Key direct community impacts are primarily residential impacts to the Forest Park Mobile Home
Community (MHC), a cohesive community meeting Environmental Justice criteria. Eight MHC residences
would be relocated by the Preferred Alternative, which would impact cohesiveness of the community
and have the potential to cause a disproportionate and adverse effect on a minority and potentially low
income population. A comprehensive outreach program was conducted to engage the community and
directly affected residents in the alignment selection process. A menu of mitigation strategies was
developed from this outreach and includes installing sewer service (allowing currently vacant lots to be
made available for residents to relocate within the community), fencing and sidewalks.
A summary of project impacts is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of Direct Project Impacts
Feature
Anticipated Impact (Preferred
Alternative 2)
Relocations
Residences 8
Businesses 0
Low-income or Minority Residences 8
Farmland (acres)
Prime 13.5
Statewide Importance 0.8
Wetlands (acres) 0.85
Streams (linear feet) 64
Floodplain (acres) 0
Water Supply Critical Areas 0
Impaired Waters 303(d) Listing 0
Federally Protected Species 0
Historic Properties 0
Significant Archeological Sites 0
Section 4(f) Resources and Section 6(f) 0
Cemeteries 0
Churches/Religious Facilities 0
Schools 0
Potential Environmental Conditions 1
TIP U-5507 Page xiii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Feature
Anticipated Impact (Preferred
Alternative 2)
Developmental Potential (Indirect Impacts) Minimal
Length in linear feet (miles) (not including
subdivision extensions)
3,611 (0.68)
Right of Way Area
Acres 14.8
Parcels 8
Preferred Alternative
New location alternatives were developed and analyzed in order to determine a least-impact alignment.
Residential relocations were the predominant environmental feature and ranged from 7 to 15
residences. Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it minimized residential
relocations and wetland impacts. Alternative 2 was determined not to have impacts to populations
protected by Title VI because it includes an effective mitigation plan.
Permits Required
Construction of the preferred alternative requires environmental regulatory permits from federal and
state agencies. The City of Charlotte would obtain all the necessary permits prior to construction.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1344) requires any action that proposes to place fill
into “Waters of the United States” falls under jurisdiction of the USACE. Impacts to jurisdictional waters
are allowable if no practical alternatives exist for the project. Unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands are anticipated to be authorized by the USACE. The final design impacts to streams and
wetlands will dictate whether a Nationwide Permit #14 – Linear Transportation Projects or an Individual
Permit will be required. No Section 10 permits are anticipated.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ)
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is
required for any activity which may result in discharges to “Waters of the United States.” This
authorization is required in association with the Section 404 permitting process and is required prior to
Section 404 authorization.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources
The North Carolina Sediment and Pollution Control Act of 1973 requires projects disturbing one or more
acres of land to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the NCDENR Division of Land Resources
(DLR), Land Quality Section, for review and approval prior to land disturbing activities.
TIP U-5507 Page xiv February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Coordination
Federal, state, and local government agencies were consulted at the outset of project studies. Written
comments received from those agencies are presented in Appendix A. Two citizens informational
workshops were held on November 17, 2011 and March 20, 2012. In addition to the public meetings,
two small group meetings were held with Forest Park MHC residents on January 17, 2012 and August 21,
2012 (see Chapter VI for information about the meetings and workshops). Due to anticipated impacts to
streams, wetlands, and local communities, this document will be sent to federal, state, and local
government agencies for review and comment.
Additional Information
Additional information concerning this proposal and document can be obtained by contacting either of
the following individuals:
Mr. Daniel Leaver, PE
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-2844
Telephone: (704) 336-6388
Mr. Mitch Batuzich
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 747-7033
TIP U-5507 Page 1 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. History and Description
The City of Charlotte proposes to relocate Prosperity Church Road on new location from the future I-485
interchange/service road system, roughly 0.7 mile to existing Prosperity Church Road and continuing
north approximately 0.4 mile along the existing road to Eastfield Road. The project is included in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2012-2020 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) as U-5507. The project is included in the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MUMPO) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan and their Thoroughfare Plan adopted in
2004.
Over time the project has been referenced by many different names such as the Northwest Arc of the
I-485 Prosperity Church Road Interchange, the Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension,
Relocated Prosperity Church Road, and Northwest Arc to name a few. This document considers the
official project name to be the Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension (shortened to NW
Arc in this document). Figures 1 and 2 are vicinity and location maps of the Study Area.
The proposed improvements also include the following connectivity improvements:
The extension of Ridge Road from a stub-out west of the existing Prosperity Church Road
through an intersection with the proposed NW Arc to Goldenfield Drive,
A connection from the NW Arc to Summer Creek Lane in the Summer Creek subdivision,
A connection from the NW Arc to Cardinal Point Road in the Eastfield subdivision, and
The extension of a multi-use trail from Foggy Meadow Road to the NW Arc.
The project was originally developed based on recommendations in the Charlotte Northeast District Plan
(adopted 1996). It was further detailed in the Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan (Villages Plan)
(adopted 1999) which contained the recommendation to create a “compact, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
village” at the future I-485 interchange with Prosperity Church Road (STIP Project No. R-2248E).
With this vision of a traditional urban village, the diamond interchange with one multilane major
thoroughfare as originally planned at I-485 was re-evaluated and a split-diamond interchange with a
dense grid of thoroughfare and collector streets was instituted to support the village concept (Figure 3).
The split-diamond interchange accommodates three proposed north-south roadway connections
including the NW Arc, Loganville Drive (existing Prosperity Church Road), and Prosperity Ridge Road.
The use of a split diamond interchange “expands [the] opportunity for coordinated, mixed-use
development; traffic dispersed among three pedestrian-oriented streets with three bridge crossings;
[and] provides greater connectivity across I-485.” A Categorical Exclusion was prepared and signed in
May 2006 for the split diamond interchange configuration at I-485 and R-2248E is currently under
construction. The Ridge Road extension would also provide an east-west thoroughfare connection north
of I-485 to complete the village road network.
TIP U-5507 Page 2 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
B. Project Study Area
A Study Area was defined to encompass the full range of alternatives that could be developed between
the logical termini of the I-485 westbound service road and Eastfield Road. As Figure 3 shows, the Study
Area is defined by Goldenfield Drive to the west and existing Prosperity Church Road to the east. All
feasible alignments connecting the project endpoints fit in this defined Study Area.
C. Funding and Cost Estimates
The project is funded partially through STP-DA funds from the MUMPO in the amount of $4.8 million
with the remainder being covered by City bonds. At this time only the NW Arc, the portion of Ridge
Road from the end of existing Ridge Road to the NW Arc, and the extensions of Summer Creek Lane and
Cardinal Point Road are funded. Ridge Road from the NW Arc to Goldenfield Drive and improvements to
existing Prosperity Church Road north of the NW Arc are not funded. Design and right of way
acquisition are funded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and construction is funded in FY 2014.
Cost Estimate (prepared by City of Charlotte June 13, 2011):
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension (NW Arc) and Related Roadways
Roadway Segment Construction* Right of Way** Mitigation Total
NW Arc $6,127,940 $1,930,000 $100,000 $8,157,940
Ridge Road West $1,480,000 $0 $0 $1,480,000
Ridge Road East $1,982,000 $110,000 $0 $2,092,000
Total $9,589,940 $2,040,000 $100,000 $11,729,940
* Includes Engineering, Administration, and Reserves
** Includes 10% Contingency
II. PURPOSE AND NEED
A. Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to:
Reduce congestion on existing Prosperity Church Road by creating a thoroughfare roadway
network which operates at a Level of Service (LOS) “D” or better in 2035.
Implement adopted transportation and land use plans for the area.
Improve connectivity by extending Ridge Road to create an east-west thoroughfare and
extending existing subdivision streets to a juncture with the proposed roadways.
Provide a connection to the I-485 interchange that is compatible with the service
road/roundabout system.
The Charlotte metro area has experienced sustained growth which is expected to continue over the next
several decades. As traffic volumes increase, Prosperity Church Road in the Prosperity Village Area
would not provide an acceptable LOS. Segments of the existing facility are currently operating below
TIP U-5507 Page 3 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
the desired minimum LOS of “D”. The projected future traffic volumes indicate that all segments of
existing Prosperity Church Road would operate at LOS “F” in the Design Year (2035).
B. Description of Existing Conditions
1. Functional Classification
From north of future I-485 to the proposed intersection of the NW Arc and existing Prosperity Church
Road, the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Thoroughfare Plan classifies existing
Prosperity Church Road as a minor thoroughfare. From this proposed intersection to its terminus at
Eastfield Road, existing Prosperity Church Road is classified as a major thoroughfare. Ridge Road is
classified as a major thoroughfare.
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility and Roadway Cross Section
Existing Prosperity Church Road from the future I-485 to the Ridge Road intersection has been partially
improved by developments on both sides. There are segments of shoulder, curb and gutter, and limited
on-street parking. The Ridge Road intersection is signalized and the approaches have been widened to
provide left turn lanes. From the Ridge Road intersection to Arbor Creek Drive (800 feet south of
Eastfield Road), the majority of existing Prosperity Church Road is a two-lane, undivided roadway
without paved shoulders or bike lanes with the exception of intermittent improvements where
development has occurred. Prosperity Church Road from Arbor Creek Drive to Eastfield Road has been
partially improved to a four lane urban roadway which includes an additional northbound travel lane
and a southbound left-turn lane into Arbor Creek Drive.
There are segments of Ridge Road west and east of the existing Prosperity Church Road which are two
lane urban roadways. Ridge Road currently stubs-out 1000 feet west of existing Prosperity Church Road.
3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
There are no substandard alignment features in need of correction.
4. Right of Way and Access Control
Existing right of way on Prosperity Church Road varies from 60 to 85 feet wide within the project limits.
There is currently no control of access on the existing roadways within the Study Area.
5. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit along existing Prosperity Church Road in the Study Area is 40 miles per hour
(mph).
6. Intersections and Interchanges
Immediately south of the Study Area, a split-diamond interchange at Prosperity Church Road and Future
I-485 (STIP Project No. R-2248E) is currently under construction. The split-diamond interchange with
service road system was designed to accommodate three north-south roadways (Figure 3).
TIP U-5507 Page 4 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
7. Railroads
No railroads are located within the immediate project Study Area.
8. Structures
No bridges are located within the immediate project Study Area.
9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways
a. Bicycle Facilities
There are short segments of striped bicycle lane, 800 feet along the east side of Prosperity Church Road
south of Eastfield Road and 500 feet on the south side of Ridge Road west of Prosperity Church Road.
These were built when developers widened their frontage to the ultimate typical section. According to
the Bicycle Suitability Map for Mecklenburg/Union, Prosperity Church Road is shown as having a
“Moderate” suitability rating meaning “compared to other thoroughfares, bicyclists and motorists may
more safely share the road as traffic tends to be lighter and/or slower” (1998).
b. Pedestrian Facilities
Short portions of discontinuous sidewalk and curb and gutter exist primarily along the frontage of recent
developments.
c. Greenways
There are presently no greenways in the Study Area. The nearest planned greenway (Clark’s Creek
Greenway NE) is just beyond the study area limits, where I-485 will cross Clarks Creek. There is no
known anticipated completion date for this greenway.
10. Utilities
There are several existing utilities located within the Study Area as follows:
Time Warner Cable has underground communication cable located within the Study Area.
Duke Energy has underground and overhead electric throughout the Study Area.
AT&T telephone has underground communication cables located within the Study Area. Fiber
Optic cables are located throughout the Study Area.
Piedmont Natural Gas has gas transmission line that runs parallel to the east side Prosperity
Church Road and at multiple locations within the Study Area.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) has an 8-inch gravity sewer main that
crosses Prosperity Church Road and runs south along Prosperity Church Road and heads east
along Beaver Creek Drive in the north portion of the Study Area. An 8-inch gravity sewer
perpendicularly crosses the proposed Ridge Road extension in between Foggy Meadow Road
and Shining Oak Lane in the southwest portion of the Study Area.
While these utilities are present in the right of way of roadways in the Study Area, there are no major
lines or substations that would affect design of the project.
TIP U-5507 Page 5 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
11. School Bus Usage
Students attending 14 schools travel along Prosperity Church Road within the Study Area which
generates an estimated 130 school bus trips each school day.
12. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located within the Study Area.
13. Public Transportation
a. Bus Service
The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) provides bus transit services to the greater Charlotte area;
however, none of the routes travel through or around the Study Area. The closest bus route to the
Study Area is local Bus Route 22. The northernmost stop is at the intersection of DeArmon
Road/Johnston Oehler Road with Prosperity Church Road approximately 0.2 mile south of the Study
Area. The nearest express route is Bus Route 54X, the University Research Park Express. The
northernmost segment of this bus route is at the intersection of Mallard Creek Road and Mallard Creek
Church Road approximately 2.5 miles south of the Study Area.
b. Rail Service
The proposed LYNX Red Line (North Corridor Commuter Rail Project) is a 25-mile route, beginning in
Center City Charlotte and traveling to Mooresville in southern Iredell County. A stop is planned at
Eastfield Road, west of the Study Area. The number of riders using this stop is projected to be
approximately 350 people and the LYNX Red Line is not expected to measurably impact travel on
Eastfield Road or Prosperity Church Road.
c. Light Rail Service
There is presently no light rail service within the Study Area.
14. Park and Ride Lots
There are no park and ride lots existing within the Study Area.
15. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
No ITS systems are proposed within the project Study Area.
16. Lighting
No roadway lighting currently exists within the project Study Area.
17. Noise Abatement
No noise abatement measures currently exist within the Study Area.
18. Emergency Services
There are no fire stations, EMS, or hospitals within the Study Area.
TIP U-5507 Page 6 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
C. Traffic Volumes and Traffic Carrying Capacity
The following is excerpted from the Design Traffic Report for the Northwest Arc prepared for the City of
Charlotte dated February 3, 2012.
1. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for existing Prosperity Church Road within the Study Area were counted for the existing
year (2010) and projected to Design Year 2035 using the MUMPO model. In the year 2010, traffic
volumes along existing Prosperity Church Road ranged between 14,300 and 18,900 AADT (see Table 2).
In 2035, north-south traffic demand in this corridor is expected to range between 22,400 and 41,400
AADT per day. Note that the construction of Prosperity Ridge Road east of the study area will partially
relive this demand.
2. Existing and Future Levels of Service
a. General Information
The effectiveness of a roadway to service traffic demand is measured in terms of level of service (LOS).
Level of service is a qualitative measure describing the ability of a facility to carry traffic and how
individual users perceive traffic conditions. It is based on factors of speed, travel time, comfort,
maneuverability, interruptions, convenience and safety. Levels of Service range from "A" to "F", with
"A" representing free flow (ideal conditions), and "F" representing forced or breakdown flow
(undesirable conditions). A transportation facility is considered to be operating at capacity when it is
just able to accommodate the traffic demand. Once the traffic demand exceeds the facility's capacity
(LOS E), excessive delays occur.
A roadway improvement project in an urban area, such as Prosperity Church Road, would be designed
to provide LOS D or better in the future Design Year, based on NCDOT and City of Charlotte standards.
The daily capacity values used in this analysis were obtained from Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010
Exhibit 16-14.
The following information is summarized in Table 2 at the end of this section.
b. Existing Conditions Levels of Service (Year 2010)
Based on Year 2010 Analysis Conditions:
The segment of Prosperity Church Road south of Ridge Road is currently operating over
capacity.
The intersection of Prosperity Church Road with Eastfield Road is currently operating deficiently.
c. Future Levels of Service (No Build Scenario, Design Year 2035)
Based on Year 2035 No-Build Alternative Analysis Conditions:
Prosperity Church Road from the I-485 Westbound Service Road to Eastfield Road is projected to
operate over capacity.
TIP U-5507 Page 7 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The three primary intersections in the Study Area, Prosperity Church Road at, Ridge Road,
Prosperity Ridge Road, and Eastfield Road are projected to operate deficiently.
Immediately south of the Study Area, the split diamond interchange with I-485 was designed to
distribute traffic to three north-south roadways. The No-Build Alternative would concentrate traffic into
two of the roundabouts and crossings of the Interstate highway, thus producing a congested condition.
d. Future Levels of Service Build Scenario
(Existing roadway plus the NW Arc, Design Year 2035)
A Build Alternative was tested which consists of adding a new, two-lane roadway (designated NW Arc)
adjacent and parallel to the existing roadway to absorb proposed growth in traffic volumes.
Based on Build Alternative Analysis Conditions for Design Year 2035:
All segments of the existing roadway and proposed NW Arc are projected to operate
satisfactorily with 2035 traffic.
All signalized intersections are projected to operate satisfactorily.
The split diamond interchange at I-485 would operate as intended by distributing traffic to three
north-south routes.
e. Widen Existing Roadway Alternative
Theoretically an alternative that widens the existing roadway could be developed to achieve LOS D in
the Design Year. Specific geometric improvements are described in Section III.C. Those improvements
are incompatible with the nearby I-485 interchange and do not satisfy other aspects of the purpose and
need therefore the Widen Existing alternative was not viable for further consideration.
TIP U-5507 Page 8 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Table 2 Summary of Forecast Volumes and Capacity Analysis
YEAR 2010 2035
Segment Existing Conditions No Build Widen Existing With NW Arc
Prosperity
Church Road
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Eastfield Road to
Prosperity Ridge
Road
14,300 D 22,400 F 22,400 D 22,400 D
Prosperity Ridge
Road to Ridge
Road
14,300 D 23,800 F 14,500* D 7,100* B
Ridge Road to
Johnson-Oehler
18,900 F 41,400 F 28,000* F 14.600* D
*Construction of Prosperity Ridge Road
absorbs a portion of the north-south
traffic demand in these segments.
NW Arc (2035)
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Prosperity Church
Road to Ridge Road
7,600 B
Ridge Road to I-485
Service Road
13,400 D
D. Crash History
A crash analysis was performed for Prosperity Church Road over a 3 ½ year period from 2008 to 2011. A
total of 46 crashes occurred on existing Prosperity Church Road during this period and are summarized
in Table 3. Also shown are the percentage of crashes that had injuries. There were no fatalities.
The intersections on Prosperity Church Road at Eastfield Road and Ridge Road had the highest
occurrence of crashes in the Study Area.
Table 3 Crash Frequency by Intersection
Prosperity Church Road Total % of Crashes with
Intersection 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 Total Fatalities Injuries Injuries Fatalities Injuries
Eastfield Road 5 6 7 3 21 0 7 10 0% 33%
Arbor Creek Drive 0 0 5 1 6 0 0 0 0% 0%
Beaver Creek Drive 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0% 50%
Prosperity Ridge Road 1 2 0 2 5 0 2 4 0% 40%
Old Ridge Road 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0% 100%
Ridge Road 5 2 3 1 11 0 6 6 0% 55%
Total 12 10 16 8 46 0 17 22 0% 37%
1 2011 data includes only the crash data from the first six months of the year.
Number of Crashes Crashes with
TIP U-5507 Page 9 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
In addition, the proportion of each crash type for each intersection is shown in Table 4. Overall, rear-end
collisions were the most frequent crash type comprising over 52 percent of all of the crashes at all
of the intersections. Angle collisions and left turn collisions were the next frequent crashes comprising
approximately 17 and 20 percent, respectively, of all of the collisions combined.
Table 4 Crash Frequency by Crash Type (2008-2011)
Over a 3 ½ year period, 46 crashes translates to a crash rate of 260 (crashes per million vehicle miles)
based on an AADT of 16,000 vehicles per day. This is a higher crash rate than statewide averages for
primary routes (178) based on a two lane undivided roadway. 16,000 vehicles per day is a very high
AADT for a two lane rural roadway and appears to be a major contributor to the crash rate being higher
than average, the existing roadway was not intended for this type of urban traffic conditions. This
suggests that as volumes increase on the existing roadway the crash rate will also increase and some
type of improvement is needed.
E. Transportation and Land Use Plans
1. Overview
The City of Charlotte has identified the NW Arc and Ridge Road Extension as necessary links in the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg transportation system. The Northeast District Plan (adopted 1995/1996) and
the Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan (adopted 1999 and currently being amended through the
Prosperity/Hucks Area Plan) recommended that this area be developed as a “traditional urban village”
(Figure 4). The split diamond interchange at I-485/Prosperity Church Road was designed with this vision
of an urban, mixed use community (see Figure 3). According to the adopted 2002 Mecklenburg-Union
Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Thoroughfare Plan, each of the interchange bridge crossings
would carry a two-lane minor thoroughfare. The split-diamond interchange accommodates three
proposed north-south roadway connections.
Prosperity Church Road
Intersection Rear-end Head-on Angle Left-turn Right-turn Sideswipe Other Total
Eastfield Road 16 0 3 1 0 1 0 21
Arbor Creek Drive 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 6
Beaver Creek Drive 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Prosperity Ridge Road 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 5
Old Ridge Road 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Ridge Road 4 0 1 5 0 0 1 11
% of all Crashes 52% 0% 17% 20% 0% 4% 7% 46
Note:
2011 data includes only the crash data from the first six months of the year.
Number of Crashes by Type
TIP U-5507 Page 10 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
2. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program
The proposed project (STIP Project No. U-5507) continues the transportation network established via
the I-485 interchange/service road system (STIP Project No. R-2248E), which is the final segment of the
Charlotte Outer Loop. The I-485 project links I-77 to I-85 and is scheduled to be completed by December
2014.
3. Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO)
a. 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
An updated long-range transportation plan (LRTP) was approved in May 2010. The 2035 LRTP map of
financially-constrained projects includes the proposed project, but does not provide a project time
frame for construction.
b. Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan, which was adopted on
November 17, 2004. The Thoroughfare Plan shows the NW Arc as a proposed minor thoroughfare
between its intersections with existing Prosperity Church Road, I-485, and points south.
c. (Draft) Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes the proposed project, including the NW Arc and Ridge
Road Extension with ultimate termini on both roadways (via other projects) consistent with the
Thoroughfare Plan and 2035 LRTP.
4. Charlotte Department of Transportation
a. Transportation Action Plan (TAP)
The NW Arc, from future I-485 to Prosperity Ridge Road, is listed in the 2011 TAP Technical Document as
a locally funded roadway project, ranked 12th out of 53 projects while improvements to Prosperity
Church Road, from Prosperity Ridge Road to Eastfield Road, are ranked 16th. Ridge Road Extension
includes not only the portion of the proposed project, but continuation further west. It is ranked 52nd
and includes improvements from Prosperity Church Road to Eastfield Road.
b. Connectivity Policy Statements
The City of Charlotte’s Connectivity Policy Statements (October 2009) consists of five policy statements
that guide the integration of connectivity goals into operational, regulatory, and capital programs.
Planning, preservation, partnering, protection, and prioritization are the focus of these five statements.
The NW Arc project has been developed to enhance connectivity with north-south connections to I-485,
east-west extensions of Ridge Road, and connections to existing subdivision streets.
c. Urban Street Design Guidelines
The Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG) are a vital supporting component of the TAP because the
USDG describe how the planning and design of Charlotte’s streets and intersections would support
livability and economic development objectives while also creating more travel choices. The proposed
typical sections for the NW Arc were designed in accordance with this policy.
TIP U-5507 Page 11 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
d. Bicycle Plan
The City of Charlotte Bicycle Plan was adopted by the Charlotte City Council in July 2008. The plan
“envisions an accessible, connected and comfortable bicycle network in Charlotte...” This includes
future bicycle lanes on Ridge Road, Ridge Road Extension, the NW Arc, and Eastfield Road.
5. Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS)
a. 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan
The City of Charlotte’s Metropolitan Transit Commission adopted the 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan
on November 15, 2006. This updated, long-range plan consists of multiple rapid transit improvements
in five corridors, a series of Center City improvements, and bus service and facility improvements
throughout the region; however, no transit projects are included within the Study Area.
6. Land Use Plans
a. Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan / Northeast District Plan
The Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan is a land use and urban design plan for the Prosperity Church
Road and I-485 Interchange area (Figure 4). The Villages Plan envisions a pedestrian-oriented area with
an interconnected street network. The proposed design plans for the NW Arc (and where applicable,
the Ridge Road Extension) incorporate the recommendations from the Villages Plan.
b. Prosperity/Hucks Area Plan
The Prosperity/Hucks Area Plan is currently underway and will provide updates to the Villages Plan and
Northeast District Plan.
F. Benefits of the Proposed Project
Construction of the proposed project would greatly enhance mobility throughout the entire Study Area
and provide increased capacity for north-south travel as shown in the traffic analysis of the proposed
Build Alternative for Opening and Design Years 2015 and 2035:
All segments of the existing Prosperity Church Road and the proposed new facility are projected
to operate satisfactorily.
All signalized intersections in the Study Area are projected to operate satisfactorily.
The I-485 Service road system would operate as intended by distributing the north-south traffic
among three crossings of the interstate highway.
Connectivity would be greatly enhanced by construction of the proposed new roadway from the I-485
interchange to a point north of the Villages area, the extension of Ridge Road from Goldenfield Drive
through the NW Arc to the existing stub-out of Ridge Road, and extending two subdivision streets
eastward to the proposed new roadway. North-south travel would also be enhanced with additional
capacity while avoiding the impacts of widening an existing roadway. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and
comfort would be enhanced through low design speeds, wide planting strips that include large-maturing
street trees, wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and on-street parking.
TIP U-5507 Page 12 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The project would have a positive impact on vehicular safety. Reduced traffic congestion can be
expected to result in lowering the accident rate. Emergency response times should improve with
construction of the project by reducing congestion on Prosperity Church Road.
The project also directly supports the land-use plan by creating a grid of streets as an alternative to a
large, multi-lane thoroughfare. A grid of streets is more conducive to intense mixed-use development as
proposed in the Villages Plan, Northeast Area Plan and the 2010 Centers, Corridors and Wedges Plan.
III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives
A full range of preliminary study alternatives were evaluated. Several alternatives were eliminated from
further consideration because they did not meet the purpose and need of the project. Eight alternative
alignments on new location were developed for further evaluation. The following sections discuss the
preliminary study alternatives and the alternative new location alignments that were considered.
1. Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Travel Demand Management strategies include staggered work hours and ridesharing. Given the wide
variety of employers in this part of Charlotte and the deficiency in traffic carrying capacity in the existing
roadway, it is not expected that adjustments to work schedules or ridesharing would substantially
reduce the peak hour traffic volumes within the Study Area. For these reasons, the TDM Alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
2. Mass Transit
Charlotte Area Transit System provides public transportation to the Study Area, but currently does not
have a route along existing Prosperity Church Road. The existing two lane roadway would not support
the addition of busses and bus stops without adding significantly to the congestion on the roadway. Any
reduction in the number of vehicles on the roadway related to transit usage would be fully offset by the
reduction in capacity cause by stopped busses blocking traffic flow. For these reasons, the Mass Transit
Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
3. Transportation System Management (TSM)
Transportation system management activities, such as intersection improvements, signing or traffic
signalization improvements would potentially improve operations along the existing roadway; however,
the NW Arc Design Traffic Report prepared for this project demonstrates that such improvements would
not sufficiently meet the project purpose of reducing congestion on Prosperity Church Road and
improving connections to the I-485 service road system. Therefore, the TSM Alternative was eliminated
from further consideration.
TIP U-5507 Page 13 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
B. "No-Build" Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to Prosperity Church Road
within the Study Area; only typical maintenance activities would occur. As traffic volumes grow
congestion would increase and mobility would severely deteriorate. The I-485 service road system and
interchange would not function as intended. Safety for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists in the Study
Area would be compromised as traffic volumes increase. The No-Build Alternative does not support the
land use plans developed for the area and does not meet the purpose and need of the project; however,
in accordance with Federal Highway Administration guidelines, the No-Build Alternative was given full
consideration in order to provide a baseline for comparison with all other alternatives.
C. Widen Existing Prosperity Church Road
To achieve a LOS “D” or better in 2035 by widening existing Prosperity Church Road to four lanes, the
following improvements are required:
Four basic through lanes
A traffic signal at the intersection of Prosperity Church Road and Prosperity Ridge Road
Major intersection improvements at the intersection of Prosperity Church Road and Ridge Road
While outside of the NW Arc project limits, the concentration of traffic at the roundabout of
existing Prosperity Church Road and I-485 Westbound Service Road would require additional
lanes on all approaches including a roundabout configuration with three (3) circulating lanes.
Even with the improvements noted above, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need
because the I-485 interchange would not function as intended, Ridge Road would not be extended,
connectivity would not be enhanced and the urban village concept would not be realized.
D. New Location Alternatives
Eight alternative alignments on new location were developed within the Study Area. They represent the
full range of alternatives available which share the logical termini of I-485 west bound service road on
the south to Eastfield Road on the north. These alternative alignments are shown on Figure 5.
The following is a description of each alternative and the design features that make it unique:
Alternative Alignment 1 – this alignment was developed to avoid impacts to the Forest Park
MHC. This alignment would result in 15 residences within the subdivision being relocated.
Alternative Alignment 2 – this alignment was developed with the western right of way to follow
the existing property lines between the adjacent subdivision and the MHC. This alignment
would result in 8 residences within the MHC being relocated.
Alternative Alignment 3 – this alignment was developed to follow the right of way established
with the development of the Preserve at Prosperity Church.
Alternative Alignment 4 – this alignment was developed to account for a minimum offset
needed to accommodate single family home development along the NW Arc. This alignment
would result in 7 residences within the MHC being relocated.
TIP U-5507 Page 14 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Alternative Alignment 5 – this alignment was developed with the intent to avoid impacts to the
homes just south of the proposed intersection of the NW Arc and Ridge Road and to provide an
optional connection to the existing Prosperity Church Road.
Alternative Alignments 6 and 7 – these alignments were developed to evaluate an optional
connection to the existing Prosperity Church Road.
Alternative Alignment 8 – this alignment was developed to avoid impacts to structures
immediately south of the proposed intersection of the NW Arc and Ridge Road. The remainder
of this alignment north of Ridge Road beyond these homes is to the same as Alternative 2.
These alternative alignments were developed to scale and overlaid on GIS-based constraint mapping.
The following alternatives were eliminated based on a fatal flaw analysis:
Alternative Alignment 3 –This alignment was eliminated because it would result in long narrow
remainder parcels along the west side of the proposed road which cannot be developed.
Alternative Alignment 5 – This alignment was eliminated because of the close proximity to the
cemetery at Prosperity Presbyterian Church and impacts to the Forest Park MHC. Impacts
include relocations and separation of 8 homes from the remainder of the community.
Alternative Alignments 6 and 7 –These alignments were eliminated because of the impacts to
the existing townhomes and subdivided lots established at the Preserve at Prosperity Church,
have greater impacts to wetlands, and Alignment 7 creates an undesirable skewed intersection.
The remaining alignments 1, 2, 4 and 8 received further study and were developed to a preliminary
design level of completion for detailed analysis and public comment (Figure 6). Additional information
regarding the public involvement component of the alternatives analysis is contained in Section VI.
TIP U-5507 Page 15 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Table 5 Alternative Alignments Comparison
Evaluation Criteria
Alternatives
1 2 4 8
Project length (miles)* 1.27 1.25 1.27 1.26
Right of way acquisition
(approximate number of
properties)
27 8 8 8
Relocations
Residences 15 8 7 8
Businesses 0 0 0 0
Minority or Low-income
(number of homes)
0 8 7 8
Minority/Low Income Populations
- Disproportionate Impacts
(number of communities)
0 1 1 1
Community cohesion impacts
(number of communities)
0 1 1 1
Jurisdictional Wetlands 1.05 0.85 0.74 0.85
Prime and Unique Farmlands
(acres)
13.4 13.5 13.8 13.6
Statewide and Local Important
Farmland (acres)
1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8
TIP U-5507 Page 16 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Table 6 Right of Way and Construction Cost Comparison
E. Preferred Alternative
Based on a detailed analysis of Alignments 1, 2, 4 and 8, a preferred alternative was selected. The
potential environmental impacts are discussed in Chapter V and summarized in Tables 5 and 6.
The basis for selection of the preferred alternative is described as follows:
Alternative 1 requires right of way acquisition from approximately 27 properties, including
approximately 20 single-family residential properties in the Eastfield Ridge subdivision. This
alternative also has the greatest wetland impacts of all alternatives.
1 2 4 8
27 8 8 8
Residences 15 8 7 8
Businesses 0 0 0 0
Property Cost 1,2
Property Cost 3,4
$2,475,000 $120,000 $105,000 $120,000
$0 $433,000 $433,000 $433,000
$4,188,250 $1,683,000 $1,598,000 $1,683,000
Construction Cost 9 (NW Arc and Ridge Road) $8,110,000 $8,110,000 $8,110,000 $8,110,000
$12,298,250 $9,793,000 $9,708,000 $9,793,000
1 360+180-126.5 x 1000 sf vacant land
2 360+180-60 x 1000 sf vacant land
3 126.5 x 1000 sf corridor through subdivision
4 60 x 1000 sf corridor through FPMHP
5 $165,000 ea for single family permanant
6 $15,000 ea for mobile homes
7 $333,000 sewer system plus $100,000 fencing and misc
8 Does not include standard contingencies or reserves
9 Includes Engineering, Administration, Wetlands Mitigation
Structures 5,6
$40,000
$975,000 $520,000 $455,000 $520,000
Right of Way Acquisition
Damages and Relocation Cost
$135,000 $40,000 $35,000
$413,500 $480,000
$189,750 $90,000
Cost Component
Alternatives
Number of parcels
Relocations
(vacant, farm, wooded) @ $1.0 per sf
$480,000 $480,000
$90,000 $90,000
(developed residential) @ $1.5 per sf
Total Cost
Administrative Cost ($5k per parcel)
($65k per residential relocation)
Community Impact Mitigation 7
Subtotal 8
TIP U-5507 Page 17 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Alternatives 2, 4, and 8 require right of way acquisition from approximately eight properties,
including the Forest Park MHC. All alternatives would require right of way from the Prosperity
Presbyterian Church property.
Alternatives 2, 4, and 8 would relocate homes within the Forest Park MHC and would likely
impact community cohesion and stability. Alternative 4 would bisect the property, creating an
isolated remnant parcel with eight mobile homes to the west of the NW Arc. Therefore,
Alternative 4 is expected to impact community cohesion and stability to a greater extent than
Alternatives 2 and 8.
Alternative 8, which mimics Alternative 2 north of the Ridge Road intersection, was determined
to reduce (but not eliminate) impacts to the residential parcel south of Ridge Road while
introducing an undesirable skew at the Ridge Road intersection.
Based on the above factors, Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative alignment that has been selected
for further development (Figure 7). Mitigation for impacts to the Forest Park MHC will be required and
is discussed in Chapter V.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Overview
The proposed project consists of the following components:
Construction of the NW Arc on new location from the I-485 interchange to existing Prosperity
Church Road,
Extension of Ridge Road west and east of the NW Arc connecting to Goldenfield Drive to the
west and the existing stub-out of Ridge Road to the east, and
Widening of existing Prosperity Church Road from the intersection with NW Arc to Eastfield
Road.
The NW Arc and eastern extension of Ridge Road are currently funded. Funding will be pursued for the
other project elements.
B. Roadway Cross Section and Alignment
Typical sections for Prosperity Church Road were developed in accordance with City of Charlotte
standards for an urban two lane collector roadway (Charlotte Street Type is “Avenue”) and are shown in
Figure 8. A 15 foot landscaped berm was added to the standard typical section in areas directly adjacent
to existing residential areas. All roadways constructed in the project would be "complete streets" that
accommodate all modes of travel: vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and where appropriate, transit.
The proposed typical sections for Ridge Road are shown in Figure 9. West of the proposed NW Arc the
typical section fits in the existing right of way corridor that was reserved in the Eastfield subdivision.
East of the NW Arc to the existing stub out, the typical section has on-street parking in recognition of
the planned mixed-use nature of the adjacent land use.
TIP U-5507 Page 18 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The proposed typical section for existing Prosperity Church Road where it would be widened to four
lanes from NW Arc to Eastfield Road is shown in Figure 9. The existing roadway has already been
partially widened as part of adjacent development along portions of this segment.
C. Right of Way and Access Control
Required right of way for the NW Arc varies from 74 feet minimum to 104 feet in areas with the
landscaped berm. There would be no control of access.
Required right of way along Ridge Road ranges from 100 feet minimum to 114 feet where parking is
included on both sides. There would be no control of access.
Where existing Prosperity Church Road would be widened from the NW Arc to Eastfield Road the
required right of way width is 100 feet. There would be no control of access.
D. Speed Limit
The proposed speed limit for the NW Arc is 30 mph. Ridge Road will be posted for 35 mph.
E. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for NW Arc is 30 mph and Ridge Road is 40 mph. Horizontal and vertical
design criteria will be applied, meeting AASHTO and NCDOT standards for dense urban conditions.
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated.
G. Intersections/Interchanges
There are two signalized intersections on the project, NW Arc at Ridge Road and the NW Arc at existing
Prosperity Church Road. Each intersection would include exclusive left turn and right turning lanes
where suggested by the traffic analysis. Left turn lanes will be provided at the minor side street
connections with Cardinal Point Drive and Summer Creek Lane would be a right-in, right-out only.
H. Service Roads
There are service roads associated with I-485 at the southern boundary of the Study Area, but none are
proposed in association with the NW Arc project.
I. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings proposed within the Study Area or in association with the NW Arc
project.
J. Structures
There are no bridges proposed within the Study Area or in association with the NW Arc project.
TIP U-5507 Page 19 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
K. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Existing Prosperity Church Road, the NW Arc, and Ridge Road would have 8-foot wide planting strips and
6-foot wide sidewalks. The side streets would have 8-foot wide planting strips and 5-foot wide
sidewalks. Four foot bicycle lanes would be included on all proposed roadway improvements associated
with the NW Arc. Bicycle lanes would be six feet wide adjacent to the on-street parking. The project
also includes a 10-foot wide multi-use path connection into the Eastfield subdivision at Foggy Meadow
Road.
L. Utilities
Existing utilities within the Study Area include:
Time Warner Cable has underground communication cable,
Duke Energy has underground and overhead electric,
AT&T telephone has underground communication cables and fiber optic cables exist,
Piedmont Natural Gas has gas transmission line, and
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) maintains water and sewer service.
While these utilities are present in the right of way of roadways in the Study Area, there are no major
lines or substations that would affect design of the project. Construction of the preferred alternative is
likely to require some degree of adjustment, relocation, or modification to these public utilities.
Coordination with the aforementioned utility providers would be required during final design to ensure
that construction does not disrupt service.
M. Landscaping
A 15 foot wide landscaped buffer is proposed along the NW Arc where the roadway is directly adjacent
to existing residential development with the exception of locations proposed for fencing. Where
possible, this would remain as undisturbed natural vegetation.
N. Noise Barriers
A Noise Analysis (HDR 2012) was prepared and concluded that noise barriers are not feasible. The Noise
Analysis is discussed in Chapter V.I.
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION
This section summarizes the affected environments within the Study Area. The following chapter
includes the existing conditions, probable effects, and mitigation measures.
TIP U-5507 Page 20 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
A. Natural Resources
1. Physical Resources
The Study Area is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont (45b) ecoregion. The piedmont is located in
the nonmountainous portion of the old Appalachian Highlands and the landform is mostly irregular
plains with high hills (Griffith, et al 2002). The highest point within the Study Area is approximately 818
feet above mean sea level (amsl) near the intersection of Prosperity Church Road and Ridge Road. The
lowest elevation is 764 amsl where an unnamed tributary to Clarke Creek passes under Prosperity
Church Road, at the northern end of the Study Area (Figure 10).
a. Soils
The Soil Conservation Service, now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil
Survey for Mecklenburg County (McCachren 1980) indicates seven different soils types located within
the Study Area (Figure 11). Soil types include Cecil sandy clay loam, Enon sandy loam, Helena sandy
loam, Iredell fine sandy loam, Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, Monacan soils, and Wilkes loam. Table 7
summarizes soil types located within the Study Area.
TABLE 7 Soil Types in the Study Area
Soil Series
Soil
Symbol
Description /
Drainage Class
Hydric Rating
Potential Prime Farmland or
Statewide Importance
Cecil
CeB2
sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, eroded /
well drained
Not Hydric All areas are prime farmland
CeD2
sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, eroded /
well drained
Not Hydric
Farmland and statewide
importance
Enon EnB
sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes / well
drained
Not Hydric All areas are prime farmland
Helena HeB
sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes /
moderately well drained
Partially Hydric All areas are prime farmland
Iredell IrB
fine sandy loam, 1 to 8
percent slopes /
moderately well drained
Partially Hydric
Farmland of statewide
importance
Mecklenburg MeB
fine sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes / well
drained
Not Hydric All areas are prime farmland
Monacan MO
floodplain soils /
somewhat poorly
drained
Partially Hydric Prime farmland, if drained
Wilkes WkD
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes / well drained
Not Hydric Not prime farmland
Source: McCachren 1980
TIP U-5507 Page 21 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The majority of the soils have been impacted by prior land use activities. Soils impacts would be directly
associated with grading of the proposed road. Impacts to soils will be minimized through measures
detailed in the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Regulations (15A NCAC 04B) and local
ordinances to limit soil loss, erosion, and the possibility of contamination during constructions.
Disturbed soils will be stabilized with native seed mixes appropriate for the existing conditions during
and after construction is completed.
b. Water Resources
Water resources within the project Study Area are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03040105). Three jurisdictional streams (also known as relatively permanent waters
[RPWs]) were identified and delineated within the Study Area (Table 8). The location of each water
resource is show in Figure 12. The physical characteristics of these streams are presented in Table 9.
TABLE 8 Streams in the Study Area
Stream Name Map ID Classification
NCDWQ Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Unnamed Tributary to
Clarks Creek
Stream A Perennial 3-17-5-2 Class C
Unnamed Tributary to
Clarke Creek
Stream B
Intermittent /
Perennial
3-17-4 Class C
Unnamed Tributary to
Clarke Creek
Stream C Perennial 3-17-4 Class C
Index numbers and Best Usage Classifications are assigned by NCDWQ (NCDWQ 2010)
TABLE 9 Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area
Map ID
Bankfull
Height (ft)
Bankfull
Width (ft)
Water Depth
(in)
Clarity
Channel
Substrate
Stream A 2 3 3 Slightly Turbid Sand
Stream B
Intermittent
3 3 3 Slightly Turbid Silt, Sand
Stream B
Perennial
2 3-5 4 Slightly Turbid Sand, Gravel
Stream C 1 4 3 Slightly Turbid Gravel
Unless otherwise stated, unnamed tributaries with no designated best usage classification share the
classification of their respected receiving waters. Clarks Creek and Clarke Creek are designated Class C
waters. There are no anadromous fish present or essential fish habitat identified. There are no 303(d)
listed streams within the project Study Area; however, Clarks Creek (index number 13-17-5-(2) and
Clarke Creek (index number 13-17-4) are designated as impaired water bodies for ecological and
biological integrity (NCDWQ 2012). The impaired use is aquatic life and the potential sources of
impairment for these streams include habitat degradation that includes bank erosion and sedimentation
due to stormwater runoff from upstream impervious surfaces. No High Quality Waters (HQW), water
TIP U-5507 Page 22 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
supply (WS-I or WS-II) areas or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) are located within the Study Area.
There are no trout streams designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC).
2. Biotic Resources
The biotic resources located in the project Study Area include both terrestrial and aquatic communities.
Descriptions of the observed terrestrial systems are presented in the context of dominant plant
community classifications, and where possible, follow those presented in the Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Additionally, the fauna observed,
or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature is included in Appendix B for each described plant and animal species. The fauna
observed during the site visits is denoted with an asterisk (*). The published range distributions and
habitat analysis is also used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project Study Area.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Four natural plant communities were observed onsite including Bottomland Hardwood Forest
(piedmont subtype), Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Basic Oak
Hickory Forest (Table 10). These communities and their species composition were detailed in the
Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR) dated October 2012. The majority of the Study Area has
been disturbed by anthropogenic activities as indicated by clear cut areas, maintained residential lawns,
and road right of ways. Onsite disturbed communities were heavily impacted by invasive and weedy
species. A brief description of each community type follows. As noted above, scientific names of all
species identified are included in Appendix B.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest (piedmont subtype) - This semi-intact community type is located in the
low areas associated with intermittently flooded wetlands in the southwest portion and north central
portion of the Study Area. Canopy species are dominated by tulip poplar, sweetgum, cherry bark oak,
American elm, hackberry, green ash, loblolly pine, and shagbark hickory. Understory trees and shrubs
include ironwood, red maple, flowering dogwood American holly, and heart’s-a-bustin’. Vines include
poison ivy, Virginia creeper, crossvine, greenbrier, and muscadine.
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest – This community type is located in the western most portion of the Study
Area immediately uphill from Wetland A and Stream A. This community is bounded on three sides by
maintained residential properties and is highly disturbed as exemplified by the large percentage of pines
and sweetgum present. The canopy is dominated by a mixture of oaks and hickories such as white oak,
red oak, red hickory, and pignut hickory. Loblolly pines, tulip poplar, and sweetgum are prevalent.
Understory trees include red maple, flowering dogwood, and American holly. Shrub species include
Viburnum spp., Vaccinium spp., and heart’s-a-bustin’. Typical vines include poison ivy, greenbrier, and
muscadine.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (piedmont subtype) – This community type occurs in the southern
portion of the Study Area. This community has the least amount of disturbance as compared to the
other community types present. The canopy is dominated by American beech, red oak, tulip poplar, and
TIP U-5507 Page 23 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
red maple. Understory trees and shrubs include flowering dogwood, American holly, and red cedar,
Vaccinium spp., and heart’s-a-bustin’. Typical vines include poison ivy, greenbriers, and muscadine.
Basic Oak-Hickory Forest – This community occurs in the middle of the Study Area. It includes all of
Wetland WB and adjacent areas. The canopy is dominated by a mixture of oaks and hickories, including
white oak, willow oak, shagbark hickory, American ash, tulip poplar, and loblolly pine. Understory trees
include stunted red cedar, redbud, and persimmon. The shrub canopy may include blackhaw,
sweetshrub, and Vaccinium spp. Typical vines include poison ivy, greenbriers, and muscadine.
Approximately 10.42 acres of forest would be permanently impacted by project construction of the
preferred alterative from clearing, grading and paving portions of the Study Area. Table 10 presents the
extent of each terrestrial community type in the Study Area and the anticipated impact to each.
Table 10 Natural Community Impacts
Plant Community
Coverage Area in Study
Area (acres)
Anticipated Impacts
(acres)
Disturbed Community Type
Maintained Residential Lots 19.09 3.47
Clearcut Area 10.73 1.31
Pine Plantation 8.67 2.62
Road Right of Way 14.28 4.64
Natural Community Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest (piedmont subtype) 5.12 0.90
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 1.70 2.05
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 10.84 3.81
Basic Oak Hickory Forest 3.69 1.04
Total 74.12 19.84
b. Terrestrial Wildlife
Onsite investigations were conducted to determine the presence of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Natural
and disturbed habitats within the Study Area may support a diversity of wildlife species. Forested areas
could provide shelter, food sources, and corridors for animal movement. Wildlife that typically exploit
forested habitats found within the Study Area generally include the short-tailed shrew, eastern mole,
eastern cottontail*, opossum, raccoon*, gray squirrel, white-tailed deer*, and a variety of birds.
The disturbed and early successional habitats would be potential for species that prefer open areas for
foraging and nesting. Species may include the eastern cottontail, old field mouse, cotton rat, eastern
harvest mouse, woodchuck, gray fox, white-tailed deer, and various avian species.
TIP U-5507 Page 24 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The North Carolina piedmont supports a diverse population of amphibians and reptiles. Many species
require both wetlands and uplands to complete their life cycle. Amphibians and reptiles that may occur
in the Study Area include the eastern box turtle, eastern painted turtle, five-lined skink, eastern garter
snake, black rat snake, black racer*, copperhead, and American green tree frog*.
Clearing of forested areas during construction would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for
animals that utilize the area. Animals would be displaced into surrounding communities. This may result
in habitat fragmentation as patches of forest would be divided by the preferred alternative reducing the
amount of habitat available for the identified species. Habitat fragmentation would be minimized as
much as possible by restricting land clearing and construction operations within the preferred
alternative’s right of way. Offsite staging and stockpiling areas would be located to impact the least
amount of natural habitat and be re-vegetated after construction. Project construction is anticipated to
have minimal impacts to terrestrial communities.
c. Aquatic Resources
Streams within the Study Area are designated as warmwater habitats by NCDWQ. Perennial reaches of
the unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek and unnamed tributaries of Clarke Creek can provide habitat for
shell fish and fish. Species abundance and diversity are dependent on the size of the water body,
availability of instream habitat, and water quality. No Aquatic Significant Natural Heritage Areas
(ASNHA), Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW), wild brook trout waters,
or anadromous fish spawning areas are located within the Study Area.
There are no benthic sampling or fish survey stations within one mile of the project Study Area.
NCDWQ’s 2008 Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan: Rocky River Subbbasin indicated a
fish monitoring station F-2 (SR 1449) on Clarke Creek approximately 3 miles from the Study Area. The
monitoring station received a poor bioclassification during the 2006 sampling event. The report noted
intolerant fish species were dominant including golden shiners, eastern mosquitofish, redbreast sunfish,
and green sunfish. Instream habitat was also noted as poor including sandy, shallow runs and side
snags.
Stream crossings could result in permanent impacts to the aquatic community. Loss of riparian
vegetation can impact aquatic communities resulting in higher water temperatures and has the
potential to increase nutrient and sediment loading. Sediment and erosion control measures and the
use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed throughout the duration of the project to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources throughout the construction corridor.
d. Invasive Species
In accordance with the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina, honeysuckle and Nepalese
browntop are located in the project Study Area. Nepalese browntop is noted with threat status and
honey suckle is listed as a moderate threat. The City of Charlotte intends on following the NCDOT’s
BMPs for the management of invasive species.
TIP U-5507 Page 25 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
3. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Clean Water Act Waters of the United States
Three jurisdictional streams were identified in the project Study Area and verified by a US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Specialist on May 17, 2012. Jurisdictional characteristics of and
anticipated impacts to these streams are presented in Table 11. The locations of these streams are
shown in Figure 12. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of each jurisdictional
stream are detailed above in Section V.A.1.b. All jurisdictional streams in the Study Area have been
designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Onsite field surveys revealed that these streams have geomorphic, hydrological, and biological features
to be classified as perennial (or exhibiting year-round flow). Ordinary high water mark indicators
included clear, natural impressions on the bank, shelving, and leaf litter; sediment deposition; the
presence of wrack lines; sediment sorting; and scour. One unnamed tributary (Stream A) located in the
southwestern portion of the Study Area flows south into Clarks Creek. Two unnamed tributaries
(Stream B and Stream C) are located in the north central portion of the Study Area and flow west into
Clarke Creek. The streams are located in the Rocky River United State Geological Survey’s (USGS)
Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) 03040105 and includes the North Carolina’s Division of Water Quality’s
(NCDWQ) Yadkin River Basin subbasin 03-07-11.
TABLE 11 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area and Anticipated Impacts
Map ID
Length Within
Study Area (ft)
Classification
Compensatory
Mitigation
Required?
Anticipated Impacts
(feet)
Stream A 382 Perennial Yes 64
Stream B 242 Intermittent Yes 0
Stream B 1,246 Perennial Yes 0
Stream C 27 Perennial Yes 0
Total 1,897
Four jurisdictional wetlands (Wetlands A-D) were delineated within the Study Area and verified by the
USACE on May 17, 2012 (Figure 12). Wetland classification and quality rating data, as well as anticipated
impacts to these wetlands, are presented in Table 12. All wetlands were classified as headwater
forested wetlands of the unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek (Stream A) and an unnamed tributary to
Clarke Creek (Stream B). Typical hydrophytic vegetation consisted of sweetgum, red maple, box elder,
green ash, poison ivy, false-nettle, and soft rush. Wetland hydrology indicators included surface water,
high water table, saturation, and drainage patterns. Soils exhibited hydric soils indicators including a
low chroma matrix within the 12 inches of the soil profile.
TIP U-5507 Page 26 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
TABLE 12 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area and Anticipated Impacts
Map ID
NCWAM
Classification
Cowardin
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
NCDWQ
Wetland
Rating
Delineated
Area (ac)
Anticipated
Impacts
Wetland A
Headwater
Forest
PFO1 Riparian 48 1.22 0.30
Wetland B
Headwater
Forest
PFO1 Riparian 70 2.92 0.55
Wetland C
Headwater
Forest
PFO1 Riparian 42 0.07 0.00
Wetland D
Headwater
Forest
PFO1 Riparian 60 0.26 0.00
TOTAL 4.47 0.85
Wetlands were classified according to the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Methodology (NCWAM)
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Anticipated impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands are presented above in Tables 11 and 12,
respectively. Approximately 64 linear feet of jurisdictional stream would be impacted as a result of the
project. Approximately 0.85 acre of jurisdictional wetlands would be impacted as a result of the project.
These impacts are based upon preliminary design mapping and could change during final project design.
c. Clean Water Act Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404/401 of the CWA (33 USC 1344) permits are required from
the USACE and NCDWQ for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the US. Under the CWA
Section 404b(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) and USACE regulations (33 CFR 320.4(r)), the USACE is obligated
to require mitigation for any unavoidable impacts to waters of the US as a condition of permit approval.
The proposed project would be designed to minimize, avoid, and mitigate for indirect and direct impacts
to onsite streams and wetlands. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit would be
required to authorize project construction.
d. Construction Moratoria
The water resources within the Study Area are not considered trout waters or anadromous fish habitat.
Mecklenburg County is not listed as NCWRC trout county. No moratoriums are expected with this
project.
e. N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Currently there are no buffer rules enforced by the NCDWQ for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) established Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) buffers along creeks in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. SWIM buffers are
defined in the Study Area along unnamed tributaries to Clarke Creek (Stream B and Stream C).
Mecklenburg County Zoning Regulations (Section 12.806 Section 2 (a)) do not require mitigation for
buffer impacts related to transportation projects.
TIP U-5507 Page 27 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
f. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No water resources within the project Study Area are considered Navigable Waters under Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act.
g. Mitigation
The City of Charlotte would attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable during project design. At this time, no decisions have been made with
regard to the final design of the project. Strict adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) would
assist in minimizing project impacts. Other potential minimization methods may include:
Decreasing the footprint of the propose project through the reduction of median width, right of
way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction.
Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and wetlands.
Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
Re-establishing vegetation on exposed areas.
Minimizing in-stream activities.
Compensatory mitigation would be required for unavoidable impacts to waters of the US after all
appropriate avoidance and minimization has been incorporated. The USACE and NCDWQ would decide
if mitigation is required for impacts associated with the construction of the preferred alternative. If
mitigation is required, the City of Charlotte would investigate if potential onsite stream and wetland
opportunities are available. If onsite mitigation is not feasible, mitigation would be provided through a
mitigation bank or in-lieu fee payment to the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP).
h. Endangered Species Act Protected Species
Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended, any action to adversely
affect a species classified as federally protected is subject to review by the United State Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Plants and animals with Federal classifications of Threatened or Endangered are
protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are also a
priority of the USFWS but are not protected under the ESA. Species listed as Threatened or Endangered
by the State (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program) are afforded limited State protection under the
North Carolina State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the USFWS databases were reviewed for
known occurrences for protected species in Mecklenburg County (Table 13). There are four federally
endangered species found in the county, Carolina heelsplitter, smooth coneflower, Schweinitz’s
sunflower, and Michaux’s sumac.
TIP U-5507 Page 28 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
TABLE 13 Federally Protected Species in Mecklenburg County
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
Status *
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E No No Effect
Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower E No No Effect
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower E Yes No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E No No Effect
* E: Listed Endangered – A taxon “in danger of extinction through all of a significant portion of its
range”
Surveys were conducted to identify individuals or suitable habitat of listed species within the project
Study Area. The NRTR (October 2012) documents species descriptions, their required habitats, and
findings of the species surveys. Suitable habitat does not exist within the Study Area for the Carolina
heelsplitter, smooth coneflower, or Michaux’s sumac. A review of the NCNHP database, January 22,
2012, also indicated no known occurrences of these three species within one mile of the Study Area.
The USFWS requested a survey be conducted during the appropriate survey window for Schweinitz’s
sunflower due to the close proximity of known occurrences (found within 1.3 miles of the project site)
and on the same soils type found within the Study Area (Cecil sandy clay loam). Surveys were focused in
and around the intact forested area in the southeastern portion of the Study Area. No individuals were
identified.
The NRTR concluded that the project would have no effect on the federally listed species. The USFWS
concurred “that the proposed project would have ‘no effect‘ on federally listed species or designated
critical habitat” in a letter dated October 31, 2012 located in Appendix C.
i. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle is federally protected through the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) which
prohibits anyone, with out a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles,
including their parts, nests, or eggs. A desktop-GIS assessment utilizing 2007 color aerial imagery was
conducted within the Study Area and nearby vicinity. No large nesting or roosting trees or open bodies
of water for potential feeding sources were found within a mile of the Study Area. Additionally, the
review of the NCNHP database indicates no known occurrences of this species within one mile of the
Study Area. The proposed project should have no effect on the bald eagle.
j. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of September 22, 2010 the USFWS lists one Candidate species for Mecklenburg County, the Georgia
aster, for which minimal habitat is preset in the project Study Area. A review of the NCNHP records
database on May 1, 2012 reveals no known occurrences of Georgia aster within one mile of the project
Study Area.
Impacts to protected species are not anticipated due to no known occurrences of federally threatened
and endangered species within the Study Area. While secondary land use changes may occur as a result
TIP U-5507 Page 29 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
of this project, the project is not anticipated to have an indirect effect on federally-protected species. A
concurrence determination from the USFWS is located in Appendix C.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Compliance Guidelines
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulation for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take
into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory
Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
A historic architecture survey pertaining to structures and districts worth preserving in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act was conducted by an architectural historian in
January 2012. A Historic Architecture Report (HAR) was produced which includes an inventory of
structures located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The HAR identified seven structures and
one cemetery within the APE:
House (12901 Eastfield Road, MK 3141);
House (6621 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3142);
House (5935 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3143);
House (5715 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3144);
House (5601 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3145);
House (6300 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3147);
House (6400 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3148); and
Prosperity Presbyterian Church Cemetery (MK 3146).
All structures within the APE were evaluated for National Register eligibility, and the architectural
historian concluded that none of the structures within the APE were eligible. On February 10, 2012, the
HAR was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (NC HPO) to notify them of the results of
the survey. In a letter dated March 5, 2012, NC HPO concurred with the findings that the identified
properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and that the
construction of the project would have no effect on historic properties. A copy of this letter is located in
Appendix D.
3. Archaeological Resources
A reconnaissance level archaeological survey was preformed in January 2012 and an archaeological
report was submitted to NC HPO on February 28, 2012 for the Study Area. The report noted one
prehistoric archaeological site (31MK1113) within the APE. Site 31MK1113 contained no significant
TIP U-5507 Page 30 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
archaeological remains and was recommended not eligible for the NRHP. On March 8, 2012, NC HPO
provided a letter stating that they did not request an archaeological investigation for the project.
In addition to the identified archaeological site noted above, several marked 19th to 20th century graves
were identified in the Prosperity Presbyterian Church Cemetery within the APE. The archaeological
report stated there is the potential for additional unmarked graves both within and adjacent to the
visible cemetery boundaries. The cemetery was not considered eligible for the NRHP and the preferred
alternative is located west of the existing cemetery. Any ground disturbance adjacent to the cemetery
would be protected by a variety of North Carolina General Statues (G.S.), including G.S. 14-148 (Defacing
or desecrating grave sites), 14-149 (Desecrating, plowing over or covering up graves; desecrating human
remains), Chapter 65, Article 12, Part 4 (Removal of Graves), and Chapter 70, Article 3 (The Unmarked
Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act).
C. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources
1. Section 4(f) Resources
The U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 included a special provision, Section 4(f),
which stipulated that the Federal Highway Administration and other DOT agencies cannot approve the
use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and
private historical sites unless the following conditions apply:
There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and
The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from that
use.
No City, County, or Federal scenic/recreational/natural areas exist within the Study Area. Mecklenburg
County parks including the Mallard Creek Community Park, Clark’s Creek Greenway NW and the Clarke
Creek District Park (proposed) are located within one mile of the Study Area. No direct impacts to public
lands and scenic, recreational, and state natural areas are anticipated.
2. Section 6(f) Resources
No properties purchased or improved using Section 6(f) (of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965) funds are located within the Study Area. Thus, no Section 6(f) properties would be affected by
the project.
D. Community Impact Assessment
The following is an abridged version of the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) for TIP Project U-5507.
A copy of the entire unabridged CIA is available for review in the offices of the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation located at 1
Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601, telephone 919-707-6000.
TIP U-5507 Page 31 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
1. Existing Land Use
The proposed project is located in one of Charlotte’s fast-growing areas, influenced by the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC), University Research Park, and Uptown Charlotte. A variety of single-family
home subdivisions and two retail shopping centers (strip malls) dominate the landscape between
the future I-485 and Eastfield Road. There is a blend of recently constructed subdivisions and
established neighborhoods, a few scattered single-family residences, individual businesses, two
churches, and undeveloped land in the Study Area.
2. Key Community Characteristics
a. Geographic Location
The project is located in the northeastern portion of Mecklenburg County, within the Charlotte
metropolitan area. The Study Area is located midway between I-77 and I-85 and north of proposed I-
485, which is currently under construction.
b. Demographics
A Demographic Study Area (DSA) was defined with census tracts to encompass the entire area within
the influence of the NW Arc project (Figure 13). The population of the DSA increased considerably
between 2000 and 2010. As shown in Table 14, this rate of growth is substantially higher than
Mecklenburg County or the State of North Carolina which speaks to the number of new residential
developments in the area.
Table 14 Population Trends for State, County, and Demographic Study Area (2000 – 2010)
2000 2010 Change Percent Change
North Carolina 8,049,313 9,535,483 1,486,170 18.46%
Mecklenburg County 695,454 919,628 224,174 32.23%
Demographic Study Area 1,848 5,463 3,615 195.62%
Source: 2010 US Census
Approximately half (55.4 percent) of those living in the DSA identified themselves as white in the 2010
U.S. Census. In comparison, this percentage is similar to Mecklenburg County (55.3 percent) and slightly
lower than that of the state (68.5 percent). The percentage of those who identify themselves as a
minority population in the DSA is also equivalent to Mecklenburg County as a whole.
Those who identified themselves to be of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin in the 2010 U.S. Census
comprise 10 percent of the population of the DSA. This percentage is slightly lower than that of
Mecklenburg County and slightly higher than the state, 12 and 8 percent, respectively.
The approximately 22-acre Forest Park MHC is located within the proposed corridor for the NW Arc. The
residents of the Forest Park MHC are predominantly Hispanic or Latino and likely include low-income
households; therefore, the community was identified as meeting Environmental Justice criteria.
TIP U-5507 Page 32 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The 2010 median household income for the DSA is higher than the median for the county and the state.
Similarly, the percentage of the DSA population below the poverty level is lower than the percentage for
the county and state population. Field observations identified two areas on the west side of existing
Prosperity Church Road (Census Tract 55.09) that may have low-income tenants; Forest Park MHC
(located near the center of the DSA) and two duplex units (located immediately north of Future I-485 in
the southern portion of the DSA).
c. Business Activity and Employment Centers
The Mecklenburg County and City of Charlotte economic base consists of many components, including
health services, education, financial, infrastructure, and public administration. Services and retail trade
are the two largest industries in Mecklenburg County, according to the Charlotte Regional Partnership.
There are two retail shopping centers in the Study Area, clustered around the Prosperity Church
Road/Ridge Road intersection and Eastfield Road intersection.
There are a number of large employers within three to twenty miles outside the Study Area. Examples
include the University Research Park, University City (including UNCC), and Uptown Charlotte. Major
employers in Mecklenburg County such as Bank of America and Harris Teeter, have locations within the
Study Area.
The current number of employees in the Study Area is estimated to be 93 persons. The employment
projections for Mecklenburg County and the Study Area are shown in Table 15.
Table 15 Employment Projections
2015
%
Growth
from
‘08
2025
%
Growth
from
‘15
2035
%
Growth
from
‘25
Mecklenburg
County
745,100 22% 911,500 22% 1,065,200 17%
Project Study
Area
125 34% 292 134% 429 47%
The employment projections indicate the Study Area population will grow at a faster rate than
Mecklenburg County. Employment growth in the Study Area is larger than Mecklenburg County for
several reasons. The majority of developable land is primarily planned for high intensity mixed-uses.
The new mixed-use developments include plans for new higher intensity office and retail space. Given
the small scale of the Prosperity Village area, the planned mixed-use developments would likely attract a
larger share of new employment growth than currently exists. Development of higher intensity uses,
along with the influx of new employees, would likely accelerate once construction of I-485 is complete.
d. Public facilities, Schools, and Institutions
There are no County or Municipal public facilities within the Study Area. There are two churches in or
near the Study Area (Figure 3). The Prosperity Presbyterian Church near the southern project terminus
was established in 1789. The original church burned, was rebuilt in 1972, and includes meeting space
TIP U-5507 Page 33 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
and church offices. The adjacent cemetery with more than 100 graves was established in 1788 and
closed to internment in 1988. Alignments for the NW Arc were designed to avoid the church, cemetery
and fellowship hall building. The CrossWay Community Church on existing Prosperity Church Road north
of the proposed NW Arc opened in 2002. The existing roadway is already improved along the church
property frontage.
e. Present and Future Zoning
Land development throughout the Study Area is regulated by local government ordinances, subdivision
regulations, and flood regulations. With the Charlotte metro area experiencing significant population
and employment growth over the past decade, the City of Charlotte has taken a proactive approach in
adopting several aggressive land use and transportation plans aimed at directing growth and
development. The City of Charlotte’s General Development Policies Plan (GDP), updated in 2007, is a set
of broad policies to guide future land development and redevelopment. It provides guidance for
creating and updating zoning and subdivision ordinances and regulation.
The primary growth and development guidelines for the Prosperity Village area are included in the City
of Charlotte’s 2010 Centers, Corridors, and Wedges Growth Framework Plan. The Centers, Corridors,
and Wedges Growth Framework Plan serves as an overarching policy for organizing and guiding growth
and development. However, relative to land use decision making, the plan defers to applicable small
area plans. For the Prosperity Village area, the applicable small area plan is the 1999 Prosperity Church
Road Villages Plan.
f. Land Use and Development Plans
The Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan sets a clear vision for future land use and development in the
Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA). The proposed project would support the development of a
pedestrian-oriented grid street network and compact, mixed-use, urban villages, as envisioned by the
Villages Plan. The proposed project also includes bike lanes, wide sidewalks, on-street parking, and
provides an opportunity to implement development guidelines related to circulation and open space,
buildings, and site development specified in the Villages Plan.
Future land use in the Study Area is expected to be consistent with the Villages Plan (Figure 4). The
Study Area is located in a fast-growing area of Charlotte. City of Charlotte planners anticipate growth
and development to be driven by completion of I-485. Other regional influences include the anticipated
completion of the North Corridor Commuter Rail Line and continued population growth and
development in the nearby Town of Huntersville.
g. Transportation Improvement Plans
The proposed project would create a thoroughfare roadway network to complement existing and future
roadway plans for the area. The project was originally based on recommendations in the Northeast
District Plan, adopted by Charlotte City Council (1995) and the Mecklenburg Board of County
Commissioners (1996). It was further detailed in the Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan, adopted by
the Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners in March 1999. These are described in more
detail in Section II.E.
TIP U-5507 Page 34 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
A split-diamond interchange connecting future I-485 to Prosperity Church Road is currently under
construction. The unique split-diamond interchange with service road system “expands [the]
opportunity for coordinated, mixed-use development; traffic dispersed among three pedestrian-oriented
streets with three bridge crossings; [and] provides greater connectivity across I-485” (Char-
Meck 1999). The proposed project completes the NW Arc of the I-485 interchange.
h. Natural Resources
The Study Area contains three jurisdiction streams draining to Clarks Creek and Clarke Creek. The
preferred alternative would cross only one stream resulting in approximately 64 feet of impact. There
are no wild and scenic rivers located in Mecklenburg County. The project corridor is located in the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. There are no designated Water Supply waters or High Quality

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

TIP U-5507 Page i February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension
City of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project No. STPDA-1003(112)
WBS No. 45477
TIP Project No. U-5507
Sediment and Erosion Control
Impacts to soils will be minimized through measures detailed in the North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Regulations (15A NCAC 04B) and local ordinances to limit soil loss, erosion, and the
possibility of contamination during constructions. Disturbed soils will be stabilized with native seed
mixes appropriate for the existing conditions during and after construction is completed.
Prosperity Presbyterian Church Cemetery
Any ground disturbance in the vicinity of the Prosperity Presbyterian Church cemetery will be carefully
monitored for unmarked graves. Should any graves unmarked graves be encountered the City will
follow the appropriate steps to ensure compliance with of the North Carolina General Statues (G.S.),
including G.S. 14-148 (Defacing or desecrating grave sites), 14-149 (Desecrating, plowing over or
covering up graves; desecrating human remains), Chapter 65, Article 12, Part 4 (Removal of Graves), and
Chapter 70, Article 3 (The Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act).
Residential Relocations
Several measures will be employed due to the impacts and relocations associated with the Forest Park
Mobile Home Community (MHC).
The City of Charlotte will provide connections to the City sewer system. The sewer system
within the MHC property will be designed/sized to serve the number of permitted mobile homes
at the time the system is designed. (This number is currently 66 mobile homes.)
The City of Charlotte will construct a four-foot chain link or decorative metal fence along the NW
Arc frontage with gated openings approximately every 200 feet so residents can access the new
roadway’s planned sidewalks, parallel on-street parking, and bike lanes.
The City of Charlotte/Mecklenburg County will assist residents within the MHC with the future
requirement to change their address. A unified address signage system for each mobile home
will be included for enhanced identification within the MHC.
TIP U-5507 Page ii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Where existing mobile homes cannot be relocated, new mobile homes will be provided where
eligible relocatees are to remain in the Forest Park MHC. Additional cost above that allowed
under the Uniform Relocation Act will be borne by the City of Charlotte.
The City of Charlotte will continue enhanced outreach during future project development
including translation and interpretation services for the Forest Park MHC, consistent with
Environmental Justice principles. Spanish transcribers should also be provided for additional
public meetings, including the project’s public hearing.
Noise Sensitive Areas
Where and when feasible, construction activities that produce extremely loud noises will be scheduled
during times of the day when such noises would create as minimal disturbance as possible. Also, low-cost
and easily implemented construction noise control measures may be incorporated into the project
plans and specifications. These measures include, but are not limited to, work-hour limits, equipment
exhaust muffler requirements, haul-road locations, elimination of “tail gate banging”, ambient-sensitive
backup alarms, construction noise complaint mechanisms, and consistent and transparent community
communication.
If construction noise activities must occur during context-sensitive hours in the vicinity of noise-sensitive
areas, discrete construction noise abatement measures including, but not limited to portable noise
barriers and / or other equipment-quieting devices may be considered.
Air Quality
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition or other operations would be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning would be in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Also during construction, measures would be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents.
Soil and Groundwater Investigations
If the project requires right of way acquisitions from a property noted within the Environmental
Resources Database, the City will perform soil and groundwater assessments prior to acquisition.
TIP U-5507 Page iii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary .................................................................................................................................................... xi
I. Description of Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 1
A. History and Description .................................................................................................................... 1
B. Project Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 2
C. Funding and Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 2
II. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................ 2
A. Summary of Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 2
B. Description of Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 3
1. Functional Classification ............................................................................................................... 3
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility and Roadway Cross Section ........................................... 3
3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................ 3
4. Right of Way and Access Control .................................................................................................. 3
5. Speed Limits ................................................................................................................................. 3
6. Intersections and Interchanges..................................................................................................... 3
7. Railroads....................................................................................................................................... 4
8. Structures ..................................................................................................................................... 4
9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways ......................................................................... 4
a. Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................................................ 4
b. Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................................. 4
c. Greenways ............................................................................................................................... 4
10. Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 4
11. School Bus Usage ...................................................................................................................... 5
12. Airports .................................................................................................................................... 5
13. Public Transportation ................................................................................................................ 5
a. Bus Service ............................................................................................................................... 5
b. Rail Service ............................................................................................................................... 5
c. Light Rail Service ....................................................................................................................... 5
14. Park and Ride Lots ..................................................................................................................... 5
15. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ................................................................................... 5
TIP U-5507 Page iv February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
16. Lighting ..................................................................................................................................... 5
17. Noise Abatement ...................................................................................................................... 5
18. Emergency Services................................................................................................................... 5
C. Traffic Volumes and Traffic Carrying Capacity .................................................................................. 6
1. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 6
2. Existing and Future Levels of Service ............................................................................................ 6
a. General Information ................................................................................................................. 6
b. Existing Conditions Levels of Service (Year 2010) ..................................................................... 6
c. Future Levels of Service (No Build Scenario, Design Year 2035) .............................................. 6
d. Future Levels of Service Build Scenario (Existing roadway plus the NW Arc, Design Year
2035) ................................................................................................................................................ 7
e. Widen Existing Roadway Alternative ........................................................................................ 7
D. Crash History .................................................................................................................................... 8
E. Transportation and Land Use Plans .................................................................................................. 9
1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 9
2. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program................................................................. 10
3. Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) ........................................ 10
a. 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan .................................................................................... 10
b. Thoroughfare Plan .................................................................................................................. 10
c. (Draft) Comprehensive Transportation Plan ........................................................................... 10
4. Charlotte Department of Transportation ................................................................................... 10
a. Transportation Action Plan (TAP) ........................................................................................... 10
b. Connectivity Policy Statements............................................................................................... 10
c. Urban Street Design Guidelines .............................................................................................. 10
d. Bicycle Plan ............................................................................................................................. 11
5. Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) ......................................................................................... 11
a. 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan.......................................................................................... 11
6. Land Use Plans ............................................................................................................................ 11
a. Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan / Northeast District Plan ............................................. 11
b. Prosperity/Hucks Area Plan .................................................................................................... 11
F. Benefits of the Proposed Project .................................................................................................... 11
III. Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 12
TIP U-5507 Page v February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 12
1. Travel Demand Management (TDM) .......................................................................................... 12
2. Mass Transit ............................................................................................................................... 12
3. Transportation System Management (TSM)............................................................................... 12
B. "No-Build" Alternative .................................................................................................................... 13
C. Widen Existing Prosperity Church Road ......................................................................................... 13
D. New Location Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 13
E. Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 16
IV. Proposed Improvements ................................................................................................................ 17
A. Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 17
B. Roadway Cross Section and Alignment ........................................................................................... 17
C. Right of Way and Access Control .................................................................................................... 18
D. Speed Limit ..................................................................................................................................... 18
E. Design Speed .................................................................................................................................. 18
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions ........................................................................................................ 18
G. Intersections/Interchanges ............................................................................................................. 18
H. Service Roads ................................................................................................................................. 18
I. Railroad Crossings ........................................................................................................................... 18
J. Structures ....................................................................................................................................... 18
K. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................... 19
L. Utilities ........................................................................................................................................... 19
M. Landscaping .................................................................................................................................... 19
N. Noise Barriers ................................................................................................................................. 19
V. Probable Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action ................................................................... 19
A. Natural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 20
1. Physical Resources ...................................................................................................................... 20
a. Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 20
b. Water Resources ..................................................................................................................... 21
2. Biotic Resources .......................................................................................................................... 22
a. Terrestrial Communities ......................................................................................................... 22
b. Terrestrial Wildlife .................................................................................................................. 23
c. Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................................... 24
TIP U-5507 Page vi February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
d. Invasive Species....................................................................................................................... 24
3. Jurisdictional Topics .................................................................................................................... 25
a. Clean Water Act Waters of the United States ........................................................................ 25
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects ............................................................................................. 26
c. Clean Water Act Permits ......................................................................................................... 26
d. Construction Moratoria .......................................................................................................... 26
e. N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules................................................................................................... 26
f. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ............................................................ 27
g. Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 27
h. Endangered Species Act Protected Species ............................................................................ 27
i. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ........................................................................... 28
j. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ............................................................................ 28
B. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 29
1. Compliance Guidelines................................................................................................................ 29
2. Historic Architectural Resources ................................................................................................. 29
3. Archaeological Resources ........................................................................................................... 29
C. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources .......................................................................................... 30
1. Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................................................................. 30
2. Section 6(f) Resources ................................................................................................................. 30
D. Community Impact Assessment ..................................................................................................... 30
1. Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 31
2. Key Community Characteristics .................................................................................................. 31
a. Geographic Location ............................................................................................................... 31
b. Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 31
c. Business Activity and Employment Centers ............................................................................ 32
d. Public facilities, Schools, and Institutions ............................................................................... 32
e. Present and Future Zoning ...................................................................................................... 33
f. Land Use and Development Plans .......................................................................................... 33
g. Transportation Improvement Plans ........................................................................................ 33
h. Natural Resources ................................................................................................................... 34
3. Key Direct Community Impacts ................................................................................................... 34
4. Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 36
TIP U-5507 Page vii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 38
E. Relocations ..................................................................................................................................... 39
F. Title VI and Environmental Justice .................................................................................................. 40
1. Affected Population and Comparative Impacts .......................................................................... 40
2. Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 40
3. Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 41
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 43
H. Farmland Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 43
I. Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 43
1. Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................................................................... 44
2. North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy ........................ 45
3. Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................................................................. 46
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ............................................................................ 46
5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours .................................................................................. 47
6. Construction Noise ...................................................................................................................... 48
7. Summary .................................................................................................................................... 49
J. Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 49
K. Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................................... 51
VI. Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ................................................................................ 52
A. Agency Coordination ....................................................................................................................... 52
B. Public Involvement......................................................................................................................... 53
C. Public Hearing ................................................................................................................................ 55
VII. References Cited ............................................................................................................................. 55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Direct Project Impacts .......................................................................................... xii
Table 2 Summary of Forecast Volumes and Capacity Analysis ............................................................... 8
Table 3 Crash Frequency by Intersection ................................................................................................ 8
Table 4 Crash Frequency by Crash Type (2008-2011) ............................................................................. 9
Table 5 Alternative Alignments Comparison ......................................................................................... 15
Table 6 Right of Way and Construction Cost Comparison .................................................................... 16
TIP U-5507 Page viii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Table 7 Soil Types in the Study Area ..................................................................................................... 20
Table 8 Streams in the Study Area ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 9 Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area ............................................................. 21
Table 10 Natural Community Impacts .................................................................................................... 23
Table 11 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area and Anticipated Impacts ............. 25
Table 12 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area and Anticipated Impacts ........... 26
Table 13 Federally Protected Species in Mecklenburg County ............................................................... 28
Table 14 Population Trends for State, County, and Demographic Study Area (2000-2010) .................. 31
Table 15 Employment Projections .......................................................................................................... 32
Table 16 Summary of Community Impacts ............................................................................................. 35
Table 17 Summary of Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement for the Forest Park MHC ...................... 38
Table 18 Summary of Relocations ........................................................................................................... 39
Table 19 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria .............................................................................................. 45
Table 20 NCDOT “Substantial Increase” Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................... 46
Table 21 Traffic Noise Impact Summary ................................................................................................. 47
Table 22 Potential Sources of Contamination within the Study Area ..................................................... 51
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Location Map
Figure 3 – Study Area
Figure 4 – Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan
Figure 5 – New Location Alternative Alignments
Figure 6 – Alignments for Detailed Study
Figure 7 – Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative
Figure 8 – NW Arc Typical Sections
Figure 9 – Ridge Road Typical Sections
Figure 10 – USGS Quadrangles and FEMA Floodplains
Figure 11 – NRCS Soils
Figure 12 – Jurisdictional Features
Figure 13 – Demographic Study Area
Figure 14 – Forest Park Mobile Home Community
Figure 15 – NCDOT Indirect Screening and Land Use Scenario Assessment
Figure 16 – Potential Environmental Conditions
TIP U-5507 Page ix February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Scoping Letter Responses
Appendix B – Scientific Nomenclature
Appendix C – USFWS Section 7 Correspondence
Appendix D – Section 106 NC HPO Correspondence
Appendix E – NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
Appendix F – Agency Comments
TIP U-5507 Page x February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
SUMMARY
TYPE OF ACTION
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, an
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed improvements and relocation of
Prosperity Church Road near the City of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. An EA is
prepared when the significance of impacts of a transportation project is uncertain. This EA discloses the
project benefits and environmental impacts to the public and to other local, state, and federal agencies
to obtain their comments on the proposed action and assist the NCDOT and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) in the decision-making process. If at any point in the process of preparing the
EA, it is discovered that the project would result in significant impacts, an Environmental Impact
Statement would be prepared. If after completing the EA, it is determined that there are no significant
impacts associated with the project, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared,
addressing comments received on the EA from the public, and local, state, and federal agencies.
The content of this EA conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, which
provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA. The FHWA and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are lead agencies for the proposed action.
Description of Proposed Action
The City of Charlotte proposes to relocate Prosperity Church Road on new location from the future I-485
interchange/service road system, roughly 0.7 mile to existing Prosperity Church Road and continuing
north approximately 0.4 mile along the existing road to Eastfield Road. A connection to the existing
stub-out of Ridge Road to the east and an extension of Ridge Road west to Goldenfield Drive are also
part of this project. The project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2012-2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as U-5507. The project is included in the
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) 2035 Long Range Transportation
Plan and their Thoroughfare Plan adopted in 2004.
Over time the project has been referenced by many different names such as the Northwest Arc of the I-
485 Prosperity Church Road Interchange, the Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension,
Relocated Prosperity Church Road, and Northwest Arc to name a few. This document considers the
official project name to be the Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension (shortened to NW
Arc in this document).
Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion on existing Prosperity Church Road by
creating a thoroughfare roadway network as identified through existing land use and transportation
plans for the area.
TIP U-5507 Page xi February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Project Cost, Schedule and Funding
The project is funded partially through Surface Transportation Program – Direct Apportionment (STP-DA)
in the amount of $4.8 million with the remainder being covered by City of Charlotte bonds. At this
time only the NW Arc and the extension of Ridge Road to the east are funded. Ridge Road from the NW
Arc west to Goldenfield Drive and comprehensive improvements to existing Prosperity Church Road
north of the NW Arc are not currently funded. Design and right of way acquisition are funded in Fiscal
Year (FY) 2013 and construction is funded in FY 2014.
Cost Estimate (prepared by City of Charlotte June 13, 2011):
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension (NW Arc) and Related Roadways
Roadway Segment Construction* Right of Way Mitigation Total
NW Arc $6,127,940 $1,930,000 $100,000 $8,157,940
Ridge Road West $1,480,000 $0 $0 $1,480,000
Ridge Road East $1,982,000 $110,000 $0 $2,092,000
Total $9,589,940 $2,040,000 $100,000 $11,729,940
*Includes Engineering, Survey, Administration Geotechnical and Utility Relocation
Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered:
• Alternate Modes of Transportation
• Travel Demand Management (TDM)
• Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
• Widen Existing Roadway Alternative
• New Location Alternative(s)
• No-Build Alternative
Only the new location alternative(s) meets the Purpose and Need for the project. The existing roadway
could not be improved sufficiently to work effectively with the I-485 interchange and the other
alternatives would not provide the needed capacity. Widening the existing roadway would not be
compatible with land use plans for the area that have been in place since 1999. Multiple new location
alternative alignments were considered to derive an optimum location.
Summary of Environmental Effects
The project would result in the displacement of approximately eight residences. It crosses one stream,
and would impact approximately 64 linear feet of stream and 0.85 acre of wetlands at 2 locations. No
resources eligible for the National Register or listed historic properties were identified in the project
Study Area. One archaeological site and one cemetery were identified within the project Study Area but
not within the preferred alternative right of way. Five hazardous material sites have been identified in
or near the project Study Area.
TIP U-5507 Page xii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Four federally-protected species are listed for the Mecklenburg County. These are Smooth coneflower,
Carolina heelsplitter, Michaux’s sumac, and Schweinitz’s sunflower. The project should have no effect
to any federally listed species.
Key direct community impacts are primarily residential impacts to the Forest Park Mobile Home
Community (MHC), a cohesive community meeting Environmental Justice criteria. Eight MHC residences
would be relocated by the Preferred Alternative, which would impact cohesiveness of the community
and have the potential to cause a disproportionate and adverse effect on a minority and potentially low
income population. A comprehensive outreach program was conducted to engage the community and
directly affected residents in the alignment selection process. A menu of mitigation strategies was
developed from this outreach and includes installing sewer service (allowing currently vacant lots to be
made available for residents to relocate within the community), fencing and sidewalks.
A summary of project impacts is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of Direct Project Impacts
Feature
Anticipated Impact (Preferred
Alternative 2)
Relocations
Residences 8
Businesses 0
Low-income or Minority Residences 8
Farmland (acres)
Prime 13.5
Statewide Importance 0.8
Wetlands (acres) 0.85
Streams (linear feet) 64
Floodplain (acres) 0
Water Supply Critical Areas 0
Impaired Waters 303(d) Listing 0
Federally Protected Species 0
Historic Properties 0
Significant Archeological Sites 0
Section 4(f) Resources and Section 6(f) 0
Cemeteries 0
Churches/Religious Facilities 0
Schools 0
Potential Environmental Conditions 1
TIP U-5507 Page xiii February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Feature
Anticipated Impact (Preferred
Alternative 2)
Developmental Potential (Indirect Impacts) Minimal
Length in linear feet (miles) (not including
subdivision extensions)
3,611 (0.68)
Right of Way Area
Acres 14.8
Parcels 8
Preferred Alternative
New location alternatives were developed and analyzed in order to determine a least-impact alignment.
Residential relocations were the predominant environmental feature and ranged from 7 to 15
residences. Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it minimized residential
relocations and wetland impacts. Alternative 2 was determined not to have impacts to populations
protected by Title VI because it includes an effective mitigation plan.
Permits Required
Construction of the preferred alternative requires environmental regulatory permits from federal and
state agencies. The City of Charlotte would obtain all the necessary permits prior to construction.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1344) requires any action that proposes to place fill
into “Waters of the United States” falls under jurisdiction of the USACE. Impacts to jurisdictional waters
are allowable if no practical alternatives exist for the project. Unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands are anticipated to be authorized by the USACE. The final design impacts to streams and
wetlands will dictate whether a Nationwide Permit #14 – Linear Transportation Projects or an Individual
Permit will be required. No Section 10 permits are anticipated.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ)
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is
required for any activity which may result in discharges to “Waters of the United States.” This
authorization is required in association with the Section 404 permitting process and is required prior to
Section 404 authorization.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources
The North Carolina Sediment and Pollution Control Act of 1973 requires projects disturbing one or more
acres of land to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the NCDENR Division of Land Resources
(DLR), Land Quality Section, for review and approval prior to land disturbing activities.
TIP U-5507 Page xiv February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Coordination
Federal, state, and local government agencies were consulted at the outset of project studies. Written
comments received from those agencies are presented in Appendix A. Two citizens informational
workshops were held on November 17, 2011 and March 20, 2012. In addition to the public meetings,
two small group meetings were held with Forest Park MHC residents on January 17, 2012 and August 21,
2012 (see Chapter VI for information about the meetings and workshops). Due to anticipated impacts to
streams, wetlands, and local communities, this document will be sent to federal, state, and local
government agencies for review and comment.
Additional Information
Additional information concerning this proposal and document can be obtained by contacting either of
the following individuals:
Mr. Daniel Leaver, PE
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-2844
Telephone: (704) 336-6388
Mr. Mitch Batuzich
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 747-7033
TIP U-5507 Page 1 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. History and Description
The City of Charlotte proposes to relocate Prosperity Church Road on new location from the future I-485
interchange/service road system, roughly 0.7 mile to existing Prosperity Church Road and continuing
north approximately 0.4 mile along the existing road to Eastfield Road. The project is included in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2012-2020 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) as U-5507. The project is included in the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MUMPO) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan and their Thoroughfare Plan adopted in
2004.
Over time the project has been referenced by many different names such as the Northwest Arc of the
I-485 Prosperity Church Road Interchange, the Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension,
Relocated Prosperity Church Road, and Northwest Arc to name a few. This document considers the
official project name to be the Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension (shortened to NW
Arc in this document). Figures 1 and 2 are vicinity and location maps of the Study Area.
The proposed improvements also include the following connectivity improvements:
The extension of Ridge Road from a stub-out west of the existing Prosperity Church Road
through an intersection with the proposed NW Arc to Goldenfield Drive,
A connection from the NW Arc to Summer Creek Lane in the Summer Creek subdivision,
A connection from the NW Arc to Cardinal Point Road in the Eastfield subdivision, and
The extension of a multi-use trail from Foggy Meadow Road to the NW Arc.
The project was originally developed based on recommendations in the Charlotte Northeast District Plan
(adopted 1996). It was further detailed in the Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan (Villages Plan)
(adopted 1999) which contained the recommendation to create a “compact, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
village” at the future I-485 interchange with Prosperity Church Road (STIP Project No. R-2248E).
With this vision of a traditional urban village, the diamond interchange with one multilane major
thoroughfare as originally planned at I-485 was re-evaluated and a split-diamond interchange with a
dense grid of thoroughfare and collector streets was instituted to support the village concept (Figure 3).
The split-diamond interchange accommodates three proposed north-south roadway connections
including the NW Arc, Loganville Drive (existing Prosperity Church Road), and Prosperity Ridge Road.
The use of a split diamond interchange “expands [the] opportunity for coordinated, mixed-use
development; traffic dispersed among three pedestrian-oriented streets with three bridge crossings;
[and] provides greater connectivity across I-485.” A Categorical Exclusion was prepared and signed in
May 2006 for the split diamond interchange configuration at I-485 and R-2248E is currently under
construction. The Ridge Road extension would also provide an east-west thoroughfare connection north
of I-485 to complete the village road network.
TIP U-5507 Page 2 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
B. Project Study Area
A Study Area was defined to encompass the full range of alternatives that could be developed between
the logical termini of the I-485 westbound service road and Eastfield Road. As Figure 3 shows, the Study
Area is defined by Goldenfield Drive to the west and existing Prosperity Church Road to the east. All
feasible alignments connecting the project endpoints fit in this defined Study Area.
C. Funding and Cost Estimates
The project is funded partially through STP-DA funds from the MUMPO in the amount of $4.8 million
with the remainder being covered by City bonds. At this time only the NW Arc, the portion of Ridge
Road from the end of existing Ridge Road to the NW Arc, and the extensions of Summer Creek Lane and
Cardinal Point Road are funded. Ridge Road from the NW Arc to Goldenfield Drive and improvements to
existing Prosperity Church Road north of the NW Arc are not funded. Design and right of way
acquisition are funded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and construction is funded in FY 2014.
Cost Estimate (prepared by City of Charlotte June 13, 2011):
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension (NW Arc) and Related Roadways
Roadway Segment Construction* Right of Way** Mitigation Total
NW Arc $6,127,940 $1,930,000 $100,000 $8,157,940
Ridge Road West $1,480,000 $0 $0 $1,480,000
Ridge Road East $1,982,000 $110,000 $0 $2,092,000
Total $9,589,940 $2,040,000 $100,000 $11,729,940
* Includes Engineering, Administration, and Reserves
** Includes 10% Contingency
II. PURPOSE AND NEED
A. Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to:
Reduce congestion on existing Prosperity Church Road by creating a thoroughfare roadway
network which operates at a Level of Service (LOS) “D” or better in 2035.
Implement adopted transportation and land use plans for the area.
Improve connectivity by extending Ridge Road to create an east-west thoroughfare and
extending existing subdivision streets to a juncture with the proposed roadways.
Provide a connection to the I-485 interchange that is compatible with the service
road/roundabout system.
The Charlotte metro area has experienced sustained growth which is expected to continue over the next
several decades. As traffic volumes increase, Prosperity Church Road in the Prosperity Village Area
would not provide an acceptable LOS. Segments of the existing facility are currently operating below
TIP U-5507 Page 3 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
the desired minimum LOS of “D”. The projected future traffic volumes indicate that all segments of
existing Prosperity Church Road would operate at LOS “F” in the Design Year (2035).
B. Description of Existing Conditions
1. Functional Classification
From north of future I-485 to the proposed intersection of the NW Arc and existing Prosperity Church
Road, the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Thoroughfare Plan classifies existing
Prosperity Church Road as a minor thoroughfare. From this proposed intersection to its terminus at
Eastfield Road, existing Prosperity Church Road is classified as a major thoroughfare. Ridge Road is
classified as a major thoroughfare.
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility and Roadway Cross Section
Existing Prosperity Church Road from the future I-485 to the Ridge Road intersection has been partially
improved by developments on both sides. There are segments of shoulder, curb and gutter, and limited
on-street parking. The Ridge Road intersection is signalized and the approaches have been widened to
provide left turn lanes. From the Ridge Road intersection to Arbor Creek Drive (800 feet south of
Eastfield Road), the majority of existing Prosperity Church Road is a two-lane, undivided roadway
without paved shoulders or bike lanes with the exception of intermittent improvements where
development has occurred. Prosperity Church Road from Arbor Creek Drive to Eastfield Road has been
partially improved to a four lane urban roadway which includes an additional northbound travel lane
and a southbound left-turn lane into Arbor Creek Drive.
There are segments of Ridge Road west and east of the existing Prosperity Church Road which are two
lane urban roadways. Ridge Road currently stubs-out 1000 feet west of existing Prosperity Church Road.
3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
There are no substandard alignment features in need of correction.
4. Right of Way and Access Control
Existing right of way on Prosperity Church Road varies from 60 to 85 feet wide within the project limits.
There is currently no control of access on the existing roadways within the Study Area.
5. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit along existing Prosperity Church Road in the Study Area is 40 miles per hour
(mph).
6. Intersections and Interchanges
Immediately south of the Study Area, a split-diamond interchange at Prosperity Church Road and Future
I-485 (STIP Project No. R-2248E) is currently under construction. The split-diamond interchange with
service road system was designed to accommodate three north-south roadways (Figure 3).
TIP U-5507 Page 4 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
7. Railroads
No railroads are located within the immediate project Study Area.
8. Structures
No bridges are located within the immediate project Study Area.
9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways
a. Bicycle Facilities
There are short segments of striped bicycle lane, 800 feet along the east side of Prosperity Church Road
south of Eastfield Road and 500 feet on the south side of Ridge Road west of Prosperity Church Road.
These were built when developers widened their frontage to the ultimate typical section. According to
the Bicycle Suitability Map for Mecklenburg/Union, Prosperity Church Road is shown as having a
“Moderate” suitability rating meaning “compared to other thoroughfares, bicyclists and motorists may
more safely share the road as traffic tends to be lighter and/or slower” (1998).
b. Pedestrian Facilities
Short portions of discontinuous sidewalk and curb and gutter exist primarily along the frontage of recent
developments.
c. Greenways
There are presently no greenways in the Study Area. The nearest planned greenway (Clark’s Creek
Greenway NE) is just beyond the study area limits, where I-485 will cross Clarks Creek. There is no
known anticipated completion date for this greenway.
10. Utilities
There are several existing utilities located within the Study Area as follows:
Time Warner Cable has underground communication cable located within the Study Area.
Duke Energy has underground and overhead electric throughout the Study Area.
AT&T telephone has underground communication cables located within the Study Area. Fiber
Optic cables are located throughout the Study Area.
Piedmont Natural Gas has gas transmission line that runs parallel to the east side Prosperity
Church Road and at multiple locations within the Study Area.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) has an 8-inch gravity sewer main that
crosses Prosperity Church Road and runs south along Prosperity Church Road and heads east
along Beaver Creek Drive in the north portion of the Study Area. An 8-inch gravity sewer
perpendicularly crosses the proposed Ridge Road extension in between Foggy Meadow Road
and Shining Oak Lane in the southwest portion of the Study Area.
While these utilities are present in the right of way of roadways in the Study Area, there are no major
lines or substations that would affect design of the project.
TIP U-5507 Page 5 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
11. School Bus Usage
Students attending 14 schools travel along Prosperity Church Road within the Study Area which
generates an estimated 130 school bus trips each school day.
12. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located within the Study Area.
13. Public Transportation
a. Bus Service
The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) provides bus transit services to the greater Charlotte area;
however, none of the routes travel through or around the Study Area. The closest bus route to the
Study Area is local Bus Route 22. The northernmost stop is at the intersection of DeArmon
Road/Johnston Oehler Road with Prosperity Church Road approximately 0.2 mile south of the Study
Area. The nearest express route is Bus Route 54X, the University Research Park Express. The
northernmost segment of this bus route is at the intersection of Mallard Creek Road and Mallard Creek
Church Road approximately 2.5 miles south of the Study Area.
b. Rail Service
The proposed LYNX Red Line (North Corridor Commuter Rail Project) is a 25-mile route, beginning in
Center City Charlotte and traveling to Mooresville in southern Iredell County. A stop is planned at
Eastfield Road, west of the Study Area. The number of riders using this stop is projected to be
approximately 350 people and the LYNX Red Line is not expected to measurably impact travel on
Eastfield Road or Prosperity Church Road.
c. Light Rail Service
There is presently no light rail service within the Study Area.
14. Park and Ride Lots
There are no park and ride lots existing within the Study Area.
15. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
No ITS systems are proposed within the project Study Area.
16. Lighting
No roadway lighting currently exists within the project Study Area.
17. Noise Abatement
No noise abatement measures currently exist within the Study Area.
18. Emergency Services
There are no fire stations, EMS, or hospitals within the Study Area.
TIP U-5507 Page 6 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
C. Traffic Volumes and Traffic Carrying Capacity
The following is excerpted from the Design Traffic Report for the Northwest Arc prepared for the City of
Charlotte dated February 3, 2012.
1. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for existing Prosperity Church Road within the Study Area were counted for the existing
year (2010) and projected to Design Year 2035 using the MUMPO model. In the year 2010, traffic
volumes along existing Prosperity Church Road ranged between 14,300 and 18,900 AADT (see Table 2).
In 2035, north-south traffic demand in this corridor is expected to range between 22,400 and 41,400
AADT per day. Note that the construction of Prosperity Ridge Road east of the study area will partially
relive this demand.
2. Existing and Future Levels of Service
a. General Information
The effectiveness of a roadway to service traffic demand is measured in terms of level of service (LOS).
Level of service is a qualitative measure describing the ability of a facility to carry traffic and how
individual users perceive traffic conditions. It is based on factors of speed, travel time, comfort,
maneuverability, interruptions, convenience and safety. Levels of Service range from "A" to "F", with
"A" representing free flow (ideal conditions), and "F" representing forced or breakdown flow
(undesirable conditions). A transportation facility is considered to be operating at capacity when it is
just able to accommodate the traffic demand. Once the traffic demand exceeds the facility's capacity
(LOS E), excessive delays occur.
A roadway improvement project in an urban area, such as Prosperity Church Road, would be designed
to provide LOS D or better in the future Design Year, based on NCDOT and City of Charlotte standards.
The daily capacity values used in this analysis were obtained from Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010
Exhibit 16-14.
The following information is summarized in Table 2 at the end of this section.
b. Existing Conditions Levels of Service (Year 2010)
Based on Year 2010 Analysis Conditions:
The segment of Prosperity Church Road south of Ridge Road is currently operating over
capacity.
The intersection of Prosperity Church Road with Eastfield Road is currently operating deficiently.
c. Future Levels of Service (No Build Scenario, Design Year 2035)
Based on Year 2035 No-Build Alternative Analysis Conditions:
Prosperity Church Road from the I-485 Westbound Service Road to Eastfield Road is projected to
operate over capacity.
TIP U-5507 Page 7 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The three primary intersections in the Study Area, Prosperity Church Road at, Ridge Road,
Prosperity Ridge Road, and Eastfield Road are projected to operate deficiently.
Immediately south of the Study Area, the split diamond interchange with I-485 was designed to
distribute traffic to three north-south roadways. The No-Build Alternative would concentrate traffic into
two of the roundabouts and crossings of the Interstate highway, thus producing a congested condition.
d. Future Levels of Service Build Scenario
(Existing roadway plus the NW Arc, Design Year 2035)
A Build Alternative was tested which consists of adding a new, two-lane roadway (designated NW Arc)
adjacent and parallel to the existing roadway to absorb proposed growth in traffic volumes.
Based on Build Alternative Analysis Conditions for Design Year 2035:
All segments of the existing roadway and proposed NW Arc are projected to operate
satisfactorily with 2035 traffic.
All signalized intersections are projected to operate satisfactorily.
The split diamond interchange at I-485 would operate as intended by distributing traffic to three
north-south routes.
e. Widen Existing Roadway Alternative
Theoretically an alternative that widens the existing roadway could be developed to achieve LOS D in
the Design Year. Specific geometric improvements are described in Section III.C. Those improvements
are incompatible with the nearby I-485 interchange and do not satisfy other aspects of the purpose and
need therefore the Widen Existing alternative was not viable for further consideration.
TIP U-5507 Page 8 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Table 2 Summary of Forecast Volumes and Capacity Analysis
YEAR 2010 2035
Segment Existing Conditions No Build Widen Existing With NW Arc
Prosperity
Church Road
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Eastfield Road to
Prosperity Ridge
Road
14,300 D 22,400 F 22,400 D 22,400 D
Prosperity Ridge
Road to Ridge
Road
14,300 D 23,800 F 14,500* D 7,100* B
Ridge Road to
Johnson-Oehler
18,900 F 41,400 F 28,000* F 14.600* D
*Construction of Prosperity Ridge Road
absorbs a portion of the north-south
traffic demand in these segments.
NW Arc (2035)
Vol
(AADT)
LOS
Prosperity Church
Road to Ridge Road
7,600 B
Ridge Road to I-485
Service Road
13,400 D
D. Crash History
A crash analysis was performed for Prosperity Church Road over a 3 ½ year period from 2008 to 2011. A
total of 46 crashes occurred on existing Prosperity Church Road during this period and are summarized
in Table 3. Also shown are the percentage of crashes that had injuries. There were no fatalities.
The intersections on Prosperity Church Road at Eastfield Road and Ridge Road had the highest
occurrence of crashes in the Study Area.
Table 3 Crash Frequency by Intersection
Prosperity Church Road Total % of Crashes with
Intersection 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 Total Fatalities Injuries Injuries Fatalities Injuries
Eastfield Road 5 6 7 3 21 0 7 10 0% 33%
Arbor Creek Drive 0 0 5 1 6 0 0 0 0% 0%
Beaver Creek Drive 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0% 50%
Prosperity Ridge Road 1 2 0 2 5 0 2 4 0% 40%
Old Ridge Road 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0% 100%
Ridge Road 5 2 3 1 11 0 6 6 0% 55%
Total 12 10 16 8 46 0 17 22 0% 37%
1 2011 data includes only the crash data from the first six months of the year.
Number of Crashes Crashes with
TIP U-5507 Page 9 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
In addition, the proportion of each crash type for each intersection is shown in Table 4. Overall, rear-end
collisions were the most frequent crash type comprising over 52 percent of all of the crashes at all
of the intersections. Angle collisions and left turn collisions were the next frequent crashes comprising
approximately 17 and 20 percent, respectively, of all of the collisions combined.
Table 4 Crash Frequency by Crash Type (2008-2011)
Over a 3 ½ year period, 46 crashes translates to a crash rate of 260 (crashes per million vehicle miles)
based on an AADT of 16,000 vehicles per day. This is a higher crash rate than statewide averages for
primary routes (178) based on a two lane undivided roadway. 16,000 vehicles per day is a very high
AADT for a two lane rural roadway and appears to be a major contributor to the crash rate being higher
than average, the existing roadway was not intended for this type of urban traffic conditions. This
suggests that as volumes increase on the existing roadway the crash rate will also increase and some
type of improvement is needed.
E. Transportation and Land Use Plans
1. Overview
The City of Charlotte has identified the NW Arc and Ridge Road Extension as necessary links in the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg transportation system. The Northeast District Plan (adopted 1995/1996) and
the Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan (adopted 1999 and currently being amended through the
Prosperity/Hucks Area Plan) recommended that this area be developed as a “traditional urban village”
(Figure 4). The split diamond interchange at I-485/Prosperity Church Road was designed with this vision
of an urban, mixed use community (see Figure 3). According to the adopted 2002 Mecklenburg-Union
Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Thoroughfare Plan, each of the interchange bridge crossings
would carry a two-lane minor thoroughfare. The split-diamond interchange accommodates three
proposed north-south roadway connections.
Prosperity Church Road
Intersection Rear-end Head-on Angle Left-turn Right-turn Sideswipe Other Total
Eastfield Road 16 0 3 1 0 1 0 21
Arbor Creek Drive 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 6
Beaver Creek Drive 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Prosperity Ridge Road 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 5
Old Ridge Road 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Ridge Road 4 0 1 5 0 0 1 11
% of all Crashes 52% 0% 17% 20% 0% 4% 7% 46
Note:
2011 data includes only the crash data from the first six months of the year.
Number of Crashes by Type
TIP U-5507 Page 10 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
2. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program
The proposed project (STIP Project No. U-5507) continues the transportation network established via
the I-485 interchange/service road system (STIP Project No. R-2248E), which is the final segment of the
Charlotte Outer Loop. The I-485 project links I-77 to I-85 and is scheduled to be completed by December
2014.
3. Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO)
a. 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
An updated long-range transportation plan (LRTP) was approved in May 2010. The 2035 LRTP map of
financially-constrained projects includes the proposed project, but does not provide a project time
frame for construction.
b. Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan, which was adopted on
November 17, 2004. The Thoroughfare Plan shows the NW Arc as a proposed minor thoroughfare
between its intersections with existing Prosperity Church Road, I-485, and points south.
c. (Draft) Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes the proposed project, including the NW Arc and Ridge
Road Extension with ultimate termini on both roadways (via other projects) consistent with the
Thoroughfare Plan and 2035 LRTP.
4. Charlotte Department of Transportation
a. Transportation Action Plan (TAP)
The NW Arc, from future I-485 to Prosperity Ridge Road, is listed in the 2011 TAP Technical Document as
a locally funded roadway project, ranked 12th out of 53 projects while improvements to Prosperity
Church Road, from Prosperity Ridge Road to Eastfield Road, are ranked 16th. Ridge Road Extension
includes not only the portion of the proposed project, but continuation further west. It is ranked 52nd
and includes improvements from Prosperity Church Road to Eastfield Road.
b. Connectivity Policy Statements
The City of Charlotte’s Connectivity Policy Statements (October 2009) consists of five policy statements
that guide the integration of connectivity goals into operational, regulatory, and capital programs.
Planning, preservation, partnering, protection, and prioritization are the focus of these five statements.
The NW Arc project has been developed to enhance connectivity with north-south connections to I-485,
east-west extensions of Ridge Road, and connections to existing subdivision streets.
c. Urban Street Design Guidelines
The Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG) are a vital supporting component of the TAP because the
USDG describe how the planning and design of Charlotte’s streets and intersections would support
livability and economic development objectives while also creating more travel choices. The proposed
typical sections for the NW Arc were designed in accordance with this policy.
TIP U-5507 Page 11 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
d. Bicycle Plan
The City of Charlotte Bicycle Plan was adopted by the Charlotte City Council in July 2008. The plan
“envisions an accessible, connected and comfortable bicycle network in Charlotte...” This includes
future bicycle lanes on Ridge Road, Ridge Road Extension, the NW Arc, and Eastfield Road.
5. Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS)
a. 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan
The City of Charlotte’s Metropolitan Transit Commission adopted the 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan
on November 15, 2006. This updated, long-range plan consists of multiple rapid transit improvements
in five corridors, a series of Center City improvements, and bus service and facility improvements
throughout the region; however, no transit projects are included within the Study Area.
6. Land Use Plans
a. Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan / Northeast District Plan
The Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan is a land use and urban design plan for the Prosperity Church
Road and I-485 Interchange area (Figure 4). The Villages Plan envisions a pedestrian-oriented area with
an interconnected street network. The proposed design plans for the NW Arc (and where applicable,
the Ridge Road Extension) incorporate the recommendations from the Villages Plan.
b. Prosperity/Hucks Area Plan
The Prosperity/Hucks Area Plan is currently underway and will provide updates to the Villages Plan and
Northeast District Plan.
F. Benefits of the Proposed Project
Construction of the proposed project would greatly enhance mobility throughout the entire Study Area
and provide increased capacity for north-south travel as shown in the traffic analysis of the proposed
Build Alternative for Opening and Design Years 2015 and 2035:
All segments of the existing Prosperity Church Road and the proposed new facility are projected
to operate satisfactorily.
All signalized intersections in the Study Area are projected to operate satisfactorily.
The I-485 Service road system would operate as intended by distributing the north-south traffic
among three crossings of the interstate highway.
Connectivity would be greatly enhanced by construction of the proposed new roadway from the I-485
interchange to a point north of the Villages area, the extension of Ridge Road from Goldenfield Drive
through the NW Arc to the existing stub-out of Ridge Road, and extending two subdivision streets
eastward to the proposed new roadway. North-south travel would also be enhanced with additional
capacity while avoiding the impacts of widening an existing roadway. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and
comfort would be enhanced through low design speeds, wide planting strips that include large-maturing
street trees, wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and on-street parking.
TIP U-5507 Page 12 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The project would have a positive impact on vehicular safety. Reduced traffic congestion can be
expected to result in lowering the accident rate. Emergency response times should improve with
construction of the project by reducing congestion on Prosperity Church Road.
The project also directly supports the land-use plan by creating a grid of streets as an alternative to a
large, multi-lane thoroughfare. A grid of streets is more conducive to intense mixed-use development as
proposed in the Villages Plan, Northeast Area Plan and the 2010 Centers, Corridors and Wedges Plan.
III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives
A full range of preliminary study alternatives were evaluated. Several alternatives were eliminated from
further consideration because they did not meet the purpose and need of the project. Eight alternative
alignments on new location were developed for further evaluation. The following sections discuss the
preliminary study alternatives and the alternative new location alignments that were considered.
1. Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Travel Demand Management strategies include staggered work hours and ridesharing. Given the wide
variety of employers in this part of Charlotte and the deficiency in traffic carrying capacity in the existing
roadway, it is not expected that adjustments to work schedules or ridesharing would substantially
reduce the peak hour traffic volumes within the Study Area. For these reasons, the TDM Alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
2. Mass Transit
Charlotte Area Transit System provides public transportation to the Study Area, but currently does not
have a route along existing Prosperity Church Road. The existing two lane roadway would not support
the addition of busses and bus stops without adding significantly to the congestion on the roadway. Any
reduction in the number of vehicles on the roadway related to transit usage would be fully offset by the
reduction in capacity cause by stopped busses blocking traffic flow. For these reasons, the Mass Transit
Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
3. Transportation System Management (TSM)
Transportation system management activities, such as intersection improvements, signing or traffic
signalization improvements would potentially improve operations along the existing roadway; however,
the NW Arc Design Traffic Report prepared for this project demonstrates that such improvements would
not sufficiently meet the project purpose of reducing congestion on Prosperity Church Road and
improving connections to the I-485 service road system. Therefore, the TSM Alternative was eliminated
from further consideration.
TIP U-5507 Page 13 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
B. "No-Build" Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to Prosperity Church Road
within the Study Area; only typical maintenance activities would occur. As traffic volumes grow
congestion would increase and mobility would severely deteriorate. The I-485 service road system and
interchange would not function as intended. Safety for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists in the Study
Area would be compromised as traffic volumes increase. The No-Build Alternative does not support the
land use plans developed for the area and does not meet the purpose and need of the project; however,
in accordance with Federal Highway Administration guidelines, the No-Build Alternative was given full
consideration in order to provide a baseline for comparison with all other alternatives.
C. Widen Existing Prosperity Church Road
To achieve a LOS “D” or better in 2035 by widening existing Prosperity Church Road to four lanes, the
following improvements are required:
Four basic through lanes
A traffic signal at the intersection of Prosperity Church Road and Prosperity Ridge Road
Major intersection improvements at the intersection of Prosperity Church Road and Ridge Road
While outside of the NW Arc project limits, the concentration of traffic at the roundabout of
existing Prosperity Church Road and I-485 Westbound Service Road would require additional
lanes on all approaches including a roundabout configuration with three (3) circulating lanes.
Even with the improvements noted above, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need
because the I-485 interchange would not function as intended, Ridge Road would not be extended,
connectivity would not be enhanced and the urban village concept would not be realized.
D. New Location Alternatives
Eight alternative alignments on new location were developed within the Study Area. They represent the
full range of alternatives available which share the logical termini of I-485 west bound service road on
the south to Eastfield Road on the north. These alternative alignments are shown on Figure 5.
The following is a description of each alternative and the design features that make it unique:
Alternative Alignment 1 – this alignment was developed to avoid impacts to the Forest Park
MHC. This alignment would result in 15 residences within the subdivision being relocated.
Alternative Alignment 2 – this alignment was developed with the western right of way to follow
the existing property lines between the adjacent subdivision and the MHC. This alignment
would result in 8 residences within the MHC being relocated.
Alternative Alignment 3 – this alignment was developed to follow the right of way established
with the development of the Preserve at Prosperity Church.
Alternative Alignment 4 – this alignment was developed to account for a minimum offset
needed to accommodate single family home development along the NW Arc. This alignment
would result in 7 residences within the MHC being relocated.
TIP U-5507 Page 14 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Alternative Alignment 5 – this alignment was developed with the intent to avoid impacts to the
homes just south of the proposed intersection of the NW Arc and Ridge Road and to provide an
optional connection to the existing Prosperity Church Road.
Alternative Alignments 6 and 7 – these alignments were developed to evaluate an optional
connection to the existing Prosperity Church Road.
Alternative Alignment 8 – this alignment was developed to avoid impacts to structures
immediately south of the proposed intersection of the NW Arc and Ridge Road. The remainder
of this alignment north of Ridge Road beyond these homes is to the same as Alternative 2.
These alternative alignments were developed to scale and overlaid on GIS-based constraint mapping.
The following alternatives were eliminated based on a fatal flaw analysis:
Alternative Alignment 3 –This alignment was eliminated because it would result in long narrow
remainder parcels along the west side of the proposed road which cannot be developed.
Alternative Alignment 5 – This alignment was eliminated because of the close proximity to the
cemetery at Prosperity Presbyterian Church and impacts to the Forest Park MHC. Impacts
include relocations and separation of 8 homes from the remainder of the community.
Alternative Alignments 6 and 7 –These alignments were eliminated because of the impacts to
the existing townhomes and subdivided lots established at the Preserve at Prosperity Church,
have greater impacts to wetlands, and Alignment 7 creates an undesirable skewed intersection.
The remaining alignments 1, 2, 4 and 8 received further study and were developed to a preliminary
design level of completion for detailed analysis and public comment (Figure 6). Additional information
regarding the public involvement component of the alternatives analysis is contained in Section VI.
TIP U-5507 Page 15 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Table 5 Alternative Alignments Comparison
Evaluation Criteria
Alternatives
1 2 4 8
Project length (miles)* 1.27 1.25 1.27 1.26
Right of way acquisition
(approximate number of
properties)
27 8 8 8
Relocations
Residences 15 8 7 8
Businesses 0 0 0 0
Minority or Low-income
(number of homes)
0 8 7 8
Minority/Low Income Populations
- Disproportionate Impacts
(number of communities)
0 1 1 1
Community cohesion impacts
(number of communities)
0 1 1 1
Jurisdictional Wetlands 1.05 0.85 0.74 0.85
Prime and Unique Farmlands
(acres)
13.4 13.5 13.8 13.6
Statewide and Local Important
Farmland (acres)
1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8
TIP U-5507 Page 16 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Table 6 Right of Way and Construction Cost Comparison
E. Preferred Alternative
Based on a detailed analysis of Alignments 1, 2, 4 and 8, a preferred alternative was selected. The
potential environmental impacts are discussed in Chapter V and summarized in Tables 5 and 6.
The basis for selection of the preferred alternative is described as follows:
Alternative 1 requires right of way acquisition from approximately 27 properties, including
approximately 20 single-family residential properties in the Eastfield Ridge subdivision. This
alternative also has the greatest wetland impacts of all alternatives.
1 2 4 8
27 8 8 8
Residences 15 8 7 8
Businesses 0 0 0 0
Property Cost 1,2
Property Cost 3,4
$2,475,000 $120,000 $105,000 $120,000
$0 $433,000 $433,000 $433,000
$4,188,250 $1,683,000 $1,598,000 $1,683,000
Construction Cost 9 (NW Arc and Ridge Road) $8,110,000 $8,110,000 $8,110,000 $8,110,000
$12,298,250 $9,793,000 $9,708,000 $9,793,000
1 360+180-126.5 x 1000 sf vacant land
2 360+180-60 x 1000 sf vacant land
3 126.5 x 1000 sf corridor through subdivision
4 60 x 1000 sf corridor through FPMHP
5 $165,000 ea for single family permanant
6 $15,000 ea for mobile homes
7 $333,000 sewer system plus $100,000 fencing and misc
8 Does not include standard contingencies or reserves
9 Includes Engineering, Administration, Wetlands Mitigation
Structures 5,6
$40,000
$975,000 $520,000 $455,000 $520,000
Right of Way Acquisition
Damages and Relocation Cost
$135,000 $40,000 $35,000
$413,500 $480,000
$189,750 $90,000
Cost Component
Alternatives
Number of parcels
Relocations
(vacant, farm, wooded) @ $1.0 per sf
$480,000 $480,000
$90,000 $90,000
(developed residential) @ $1.5 per sf
Total Cost
Administrative Cost ($5k per parcel)
($65k per residential relocation)
Community Impact Mitigation 7
Subtotal 8
TIP U-5507 Page 17 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
Alternatives 2, 4, and 8 require right of way acquisition from approximately eight properties,
including the Forest Park MHC. All alternatives would require right of way from the Prosperity
Presbyterian Church property.
Alternatives 2, 4, and 8 would relocate homes within the Forest Park MHC and would likely
impact community cohesion and stability. Alternative 4 would bisect the property, creating an
isolated remnant parcel with eight mobile homes to the west of the NW Arc. Therefore,
Alternative 4 is expected to impact community cohesion and stability to a greater extent than
Alternatives 2 and 8.
Alternative 8, which mimics Alternative 2 north of the Ridge Road intersection, was determined
to reduce (but not eliminate) impacts to the residential parcel south of Ridge Road while
introducing an undesirable skew at the Ridge Road intersection.
Based on the above factors, Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative alignment that has been selected
for further development (Figure 7). Mitigation for impacts to the Forest Park MHC will be required and
is discussed in Chapter V.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Overview
The proposed project consists of the following components:
Construction of the NW Arc on new location from the I-485 interchange to existing Prosperity
Church Road,
Extension of Ridge Road west and east of the NW Arc connecting to Goldenfield Drive to the
west and the existing stub-out of Ridge Road to the east, and
Widening of existing Prosperity Church Road from the intersection with NW Arc to Eastfield
Road.
The NW Arc and eastern extension of Ridge Road are currently funded. Funding will be pursued for the
other project elements.
B. Roadway Cross Section and Alignment
Typical sections for Prosperity Church Road were developed in accordance with City of Charlotte
standards for an urban two lane collector roadway (Charlotte Street Type is “Avenue”) and are shown in
Figure 8. A 15 foot landscaped berm was added to the standard typical section in areas directly adjacent
to existing residential areas. All roadways constructed in the project would be "complete streets" that
accommodate all modes of travel: vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and where appropriate, transit.
The proposed typical sections for Ridge Road are shown in Figure 9. West of the proposed NW Arc the
typical section fits in the existing right of way corridor that was reserved in the Eastfield subdivision.
East of the NW Arc to the existing stub out, the typical section has on-street parking in recognition of
the planned mixed-use nature of the adjacent land use.
TIP U-5507 Page 18 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The proposed typical section for existing Prosperity Church Road where it would be widened to four
lanes from NW Arc to Eastfield Road is shown in Figure 9. The existing roadway has already been
partially widened as part of adjacent development along portions of this segment.
C. Right of Way and Access Control
Required right of way for the NW Arc varies from 74 feet minimum to 104 feet in areas with the
landscaped berm. There would be no control of access.
Required right of way along Ridge Road ranges from 100 feet minimum to 114 feet where parking is
included on both sides. There would be no control of access.
Where existing Prosperity Church Road would be widened from the NW Arc to Eastfield Road the
required right of way width is 100 feet. There would be no control of access.
D. Speed Limit
The proposed speed limit for the NW Arc is 30 mph. Ridge Road will be posted for 35 mph.
E. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for NW Arc is 30 mph and Ridge Road is 40 mph. Horizontal and vertical
design criteria will be applied, meeting AASHTO and NCDOT standards for dense urban conditions.
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated.
G. Intersections/Interchanges
There are two signalized intersections on the project, NW Arc at Ridge Road and the NW Arc at existing
Prosperity Church Road. Each intersection would include exclusive left turn and right turning lanes
where suggested by the traffic analysis. Left turn lanes will be provided at the minor side street
connections with Cardinal Point Drive and Summer Creek Lane would be a right-in, right-out only.
H. Service Roads
There are service roads associated with I-485 at the southern boundary of the Study Area, but none are
proposed in association with the NW Arc project.
I. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings proposed within the Study Area or in association with the NW Arc
project.
J. Structures
There are no bridges proposed within the Study Area or in association with the NW Arc project.
TIP U-5507 Page 19 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
K. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Existing Prosperity Church Road, the NW Arc, and Ridge Road would have 8-foot wide planting strips and
6-foot wide sidewalks. The side streets would have 8-foot wide planting strips and 5-foot wide
sidewalks. Four foot bicycle lanes would be included on all proposed roadway improvements associated
with the NW Arc. Bicycle lanes would be six feet wide adjacent to the on-street parking. The project
also includes a 10-foot wide multi-use path connection into the Eastfield subdivision at Foggy Meadow
Road.
L. Utilities
Existing utilities within the Study Area include:
Time Warner Cable has underground communication cable,
Duke Energy has underground and overhead electric,
AT&T telephone has underground communication cables and fiber optic cables exist,
Piedmont Natural Gas has gas transmission line, and
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) maintains water and sewer service.
While these utilities are present in the right of way of roadways in the Study Area, there are no major
lines or substations that would affect design of the project. Construction of the preferred alternative is
likely to require some degree of adjustment, relocation, or modification to these public utilities.
Coordination with the aforementioned utility providers would be required during final design to ensure
that construction does not disrupt service.
M. Landscaping
A 15 foot wide landscaped buffer is proposed along the NW Arc where the roadway is directly adjacent
to existing residential development with the exception of locations proposed for fencing. Where
possible, this would remain as undisturbed natural vegetation.
N. Noise Barriers
A Noise Analysis (HDR 2012) was prepared and concluded that noise barriers are not feasible. The Noise
Analysis is discussed in Chapter V.I.
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION
This section summarizes the affected environments within the Study Area. The following chapter
includes the existing conditions, probable effects, and mitigation measures.
TIP U-5507 Page 20 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
A. Natural Resources
1. Physical Resources
The Study Area is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont (45b) ecoregion. The piedmont is located in
the nonmountainous portion of the old Appalachian Highlands and the landform is mostly irregular
plains with high hills (Griffith, et al 2002). The highest point within the Study Area is approximately 818
feet above mean sea level (amsl) near the intersection of Prosperity Church Road and Ridge Road. The
lowest elevation is 764 amsl where an unnamed tributary to Clarke Creek passes under Prosperity
Church Road, at the northern end of the Study Area (Figure 10).
a. Soils
The Soil Conservation Service, now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil
Survey for Mecklenburg County (McCachren 1980) indicates seven different soils types located within
the Study Area (Figure 11). Soil types include Cecil sandy clay loam, Enon sandy loam, Helena sandy
loam, Iredell fine sandy loam, Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, Monacan soils, and Wilkes loam. Table 7
summarizes soil types located within the Study Area.
TABLE 7 Soil Types in the Study Area
Soil Series
Soil
Symbol
Description /
Drainage Class
Hydric Rating
Potential Prime Farmland or
Statewide Importance
Cecil
CeB2
sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, eroded /
well drained
Not Hydric All areas are prime farmland
CeD2
sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, eroded /
well drained
Not Hydric
Farmland and statewide
importance
Enon EnB
sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes / well
drained
Not Hydric All areas are prime farmland
Helena HeB
sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes /
moderately well drained
Partially Hydric All areas are prime farmland
Iredell IrB
fine sandy loam, 1 to 8
percent slopes /
moderately well drained
Partially Hydric
Farmland of statewide
importance
Mecklenburg MeB
fine sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes / well
drained
Not Hydric All areas are prime farmland
Monacan MO
floodplain soils /
somewhat poorly
drained
Partially Hydric Prime farmland, if drained
Wilkes WkD
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes / well drained
Not Hydric Not prime farmland
Source: McCachren 1980
TIP U-5507 Page 21 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The majority of the soils have been impacted by prior land use activities. Soils impacts would be directly
associated with grading of the proposed road. Impacts to soils will be minimized through measures
detailed in the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Regulations (15A NCAC 04B) and local
ordinances to limit soil loss, erosion, and the possibility of contamination during constructions.
Disturbed soils will be stabilized with native seed mixes appropriate for the existing conditions during
and after construction is completed.
b. Water Resources
Water resources within the project Study Area are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03040105). Three jurisdictional streams (also known as relatively permanent waters
[RPWs]) were identified and delineated within the Study Area (Table 8). The location of each water
resource is show in Figure 12. The physical characteristics of these streams are presented in Table 9.
TABLE 8 Streams in the Study Area
Stream Name Map ID Classification
NCDWQ Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Unnamed Tributary to
Clarks Creek
Stream A Perennial 3-17-5-2 Class C
Unnamed Tributary to
Clarke Creek
Stream B
Intermittent /
Perennial
3-17-4 Class C
Unnamed Tributary to
Clarke Creek
Stream C Perennial 3-17-4 Class C
Index numbers and Best Usage Classifications are assigned by NCDWQ (NCDWQ 2010)
TABLE 9 Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area
Map ID
Bankfull
Height (ft)
Bankfull
Width (ft)
Water Depth
(in)
Clarity
Channel
Substrate
Stream A 2 3 3 Slightly Turbid Sand
Stream B
Intermittent
3 3 3 Slightly Turbid Silt, Sand
Stream B
Perennial
2 3-5 4 Slightly Turbid Sand, Gravel
Stream C 1 4 3 Slightly Turbid Gravel
Unless otherwise stated, unnamed tributaries with no designated best usage classification share the
classification of their respected receiving waters. Clarks Creek and Clarke Creek are designated Class C
waters. There are no anadromous fish present or essential fish habitat identified. There are no 303(d)
listed streams within the project Study Area; however, Clarks Creek (index number 13-17-5-(2) and
Clarke Creek (index number 13-17-4) are designated as impaired water bodies for ecological and
biological integrity (NCDWQ 2012). The impaired use is aquatic life and the potential sources of
impairment for these streams include habitat degradation that includes bank erosion and sedimentation
due to stormwater runoff from upstream impervious surfaces. No High Quality Waters (HQW), water
TIP U-5507 Page 22 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
supply (WS-I or WS-II) areas or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) are located within the Study Area.
There are no trout streams designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC).
2. Biotic Resources
The biotic resources located in the project Study Area include both terrestrial and aquatic communities.
Descriptions of the observed terrestrial systems are presented in the context of dominant plant
community classifications, and where possible, follow those presented in the Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Additionally, the fauna observed,
or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature is included in Appendix B for each described plant and animal species. The fauna
observed during the site visits is denoted with an asterisk (*). The published range distributions and
habitat analysis is also used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project Study Area.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Four natural plant communities were observed onsite including Bottomland Hardwood Forest
(piedmont subtype), Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Basic Oak
Hickory Forest (Table 10). These communities and their species composition were detailed in the
Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR) dated October 2012. The majority of the Study Area has
been disturbed by anthropogenic activities as indicated by clear cut areas, maintained residential lawns,
and road right of ways. Onsite disturbed communities were heavily impacted by invasive and weedy
species. A brief description of each community type follows. As noted above, scientific names of all
species identified are included in Appendix B.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest (piedmont subtype) - This semi-intact community type is located in the
low areas associated with intermittently flooded wetlands in the southwest portion and north central
portion of the Study Area. Canopy species are dominated by tulip poplar, sweetgum, cherry bark oak,
American elm, hackberry, green ash, loblolly pine, and shagbark hickory. Understory trees and shrubs
include ironwood, red maple, flowering dogwood American holly, and heart’s-a-bustin’. Vines include
poison ivy, Virginia creeper, crossvine, greenbrier, and muscadine.
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest – This community type is located in the western most portion of the Study
Area immediately uphill from Wetland A and Stream A. This community is bounded on three sides by
maintained residential properties and is highly disturbed as exemplified by the large percentage of pines
and sweetgum present. The canopy is dominated by a mixture of oaks and hickories such as white oak,
red oak, red hickory, and pignut hickory. Loblolly pines, tulip poplar, and sweetgum are prevalent.
Understory trees include red maple, flowering dogwood, and American holly. Shrub species include
Viburnum spp., Vaccinium spp., and heart’s-a-bustin’. Typical vines include poison ivy, greenbrier, and
muscadine.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (piedmont subtype) – This community type occurs in the southern
portion of the Study Area. This community has the least amount of disturbance as compared to the
other community types present. The canopy is dominated by American beech, red oak, tulip poplar, and
TIP U-5507 Page 23 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
red maple. Understory trees and shrubs include flowering dogwood, American holly, and red cedar,
Vaccinium spp., and heart’s-a-bustin’. Typical vines include poison ivy, greenbriers, and muscadine.
Basic Oak-Hickory Forest – This community occurs in the middle of the Study Area. It includes all of
Wetland WB and adjacent areas. The canopy is dominated by a mixture of oaks and hickories, including
white oak, willow oak, shagbark hickory, American ash, tulip poplar, and loblolly pine. Understory trees
include stunted red cedar, redbud, and persimmon. The shrub canopy may include blackhaw,
sweetshrub, and Vaccinium spp. Typical vines include poison ivy, greenbriers, and muscadine.
Approximately 10.42 acres of forest would be permanently impacted by project construction of the
preferred alterative from clearing, grading and paving portions of the Study Area. Table 10 presents the
extent of each terrestrial community type in the Study Area and the anticipated impact to each.
Table 10 Natural Community Impacts
Plant Community
Coverage Area in Study
Area (acres)
Anticipated Impacts
(acres)
Disturbed Community Type
Maintained Residential Lots 19.09 3.47
Clearcut Area 10.73 1.31
Pine Plantation 8.67 2.62
Road Right of Way 14.28 4.64
Natural Community Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest (piedmont subtype) 5.12 0.90
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 1.70 2.05
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 10.84 3.81
Basic Oak Hickory Forest 3.69 1.04
Total 74.12 19.84
b. Terrestrial Wildlife
Onsite investigations were conducted to determine the presence of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Natural
and disturbed habitats within the Study Area may support a diversity of wildlife species. Forested areas
could provide shelter, food sources, and corridors for animal movement. Wildlife that typically exploit
forested habitats found within the Study Area generally include the short-tailed shrew, eastern mole,
eastern cottontail*, opossum, raccoon*, gray squirrel, white-tailed deer*, and a variety of birds.
The disturbed and early successional habitats would be potential for species that prefer open areas for
foraging and nesting. Species may include the eastern cottontail, old field mouse, cotton rat, eastern
harvest mouse, woodchuck, gray fox, white-tailed deer, and various avian species.
TIP U-5507 Page 24 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The North Carolina piedmont supports a diverse population of amphibians and reptiles. Many species
require both wetlands and uplands to complete their life cycle. Amphibians and reptiles that may occur
in the Study Area include the eastern box turtle, eastern painted turtle, five-lined skink, eastern garter
snake, black rat snake, black racer*, copperhead, and American green tree frog*.
Clearing of forested areas during construction would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for
animals that utilize the area. Animals would be displaced into surrounding communities. This may result
in habitat fragmentation as patches of forest would be divided by the preferred alternative reducing the
amount of habitat available for the identified species. Habitat fragmentation would be minimized as
much as possible by restricting land clearing and construction operations within the preferred
alternative’s right of way. Offsite staging and stockpiling areas would be located to impact the least
amount of natural habitat and be re-vegetated after construction. Project construction is anticipated to
have minimal impacts to terrestrial communities.
c. Aquatic Resources
Streams within the Study Area are designated as warmwater habitats by NCDWQ. Perennial reaches of
the unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek and unnamed tributaries of Clarke Creek can provide habitat for
shell fish and fish. Species abundance and diversity are dependent on the size of the water body,
availability of instream habitat, and water quality. No Aquatic Significant Natural Heritage Areas
(ASNHA), Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW), wild brook trout waters,
or anadromous fish spawning areas are located within the Study Area.
There are no benthic sampling or fish survey stations within one mile of the project Study Area.
NCDWQ’s 2008 Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan: Rocky River Subbbasin indicated a
fish monitoring station F-2 (SR 1449) on Clarke Creek approximately 3 miles from the Study Area. The
monitoring station received a poor bioclassification during the 2006 sampling event. The report noted
intolerant fish species were dominant including golden shiners, eastern mosquitofish, redbreast sunfish,
and green sunfish. Instream habitat was also noted as poor including sandy, shallow runs and side
snags.
Stream crossings could result in permanent impacts to the aquatic community. Loss of riparian
vegetation can impact aquatic communities resulting in higher water temperatures and has the
potential to increase nutrient and sediment loading. Sediment and erosion control measures and the
use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed throughout the duration of the project to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources throughout the construction corridor.
d. Invasive Species
In accordance with the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina, honeysuckle and Nepalese
browntop are located in the project Study Area. Nepalese browntop is noted with threat status and
honey suckle is listed as a moderate threat. The City of Charlotte intends on following the NCDOT’s
BMPs for the management of invasive species.
TIP U-5507 Page 25 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
3. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Clean Water Act Waters of the United States
Three jurisdictional streams were identified in the project Study Area and verified by a US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Specialist on May 17, 2012. Jurisdictional characteristics of and
anticipated impacts to these streams are presented in Table 11. The locations of these streams are
shown in Figure 12. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of each jurisdictional
stream are detailed above in Section V.A.1.b. All jurisdictional streams in the Study Area have been
designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Onsite field surveys revealed that these streams have geomorphic, hydrological, and biological features
to be classified as perennial (or exhibiting year-round flow). Ordinary high water mark indicators
included clear, natural impressions on the bank, shelving, and leaf litter; sediment deposition; the
presence of wrack lines; sediment sorting; and scour. One unnamed tributary (Stream A) located in the
southwestern portion of the Study Area flows south into Clarks Creek. Two unnamed tributaries
(Stream B and Stream C) are located in the north central portion of the Study Area and flow west into
Clarke Creek. The streams are located in the Rocky River United State Geological Survey’s (USGS)
Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) 03040105 and includes the North Carolina’s Division of Water Quality’s
(NCDWQ) Yadkin River Basin subbasin 03-07-11.
TABLE 11 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area and Anticipated Impacts
Map ID
Length Within
Study Area (ft)
Classification
Compensatory
Mitigation
Required?
Anticipated Impacts
(feet)
Stream A 382 Perennial Yes 64
Stream B 242 Intermittent Yes 0
Stream B 1,246 Perennial Yes 0
Stream C 27 Perennial Yes 0
Total 1,897
Four jurisdictional wetlands (Wetlands A-D) were delineated within the Study Area and verified by the
USACE on May 17, 2012 (Figure 12). Wetland classification and quality rating data, as well as anticipated
impacts to these wetlands, are presented in Table 12. All wetlands were classified as headwater
forested wetlands of the unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek (Stream A) and an unnamed tributary to
Clarke Creek (Stream B). Typical hydrophytic vegetation consisted of sweetgum, red maple, box elder,
green ash, poison ivy, false-nettle, and soft rush. Wetland hydrology indicators included surface water,
high water table, saturation, and drainage patterns. Soils exhibited hydric soils indicators including a
low chroma matrix within the 12 inches of the soil profile.
TIP U-5507 Page 26 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
TABLE 12 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area and Anticipated Impacts
Map ID
NCWAM
Classification
Cowardin
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
NCDWQ
Wetland
Rating
Delineated
Area (ac)
Anticipated
Impacts
Wetland A
Headwater
Forest
PFO1 Riparian 48 1.22 0.30
Wetland B
Headwater
Forest
PFO1 Riparian 70 2.92 0.55
Wetland C
Headwater
Forest
PFO1 Riparian 42 0.07 0.00
Wetland D
Headwater
Forest
PFO1 Riparian 60 0.26 0.00
TOTAL 4.47 0.85
Wetlands were classified according to the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Methodology (NCWAM)
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Anticipated impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands are presented above in Tables 11 and 12,
respectively. Approximately 64 linear feet of jurisdictional stream would be impacted as a result of the
project. Approximately 0.85 acre of jurisdictional wetlands would be impacted as a result of the project.
These impacts are based upon preliminary design mapping and could change during final project design.
c. Clean Water Act Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404/401 of the CWA (33 USC 1344) permits are required from
the USACE and NCDWQ for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the US. Under the CWA
Section 404b(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) and USACE regulations (33 CFR 320.4(r)), the USACE is obligated
to require mitigation for any unavoidable impacts to waters of the US as a condition of permit approval.
The proposed project would be designed to minimize, avoid, and mitigate for indirect and direct impacts
to onsite streams and wetlands. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit would be
required to authorize project construction.
d. Construction Moratoria
The water resources within the Study Area are not considered trout waters or anadromous fish habitat.
Mecklenburg County is not listed as NCWRC trout county. No moratoriums are expected with this
project.
e. N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Currently there are no buffer rules enforced by the NCDWQ for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) established Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) buffers along creeks in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. SWIM buffers are
defined in the Study Area along unnamed tributaries to Clarke Creek (Stream B and Stream C).
Mecklenburg County Zoning Regulations (Section 12.806 Section 2 (a)) do not require mitigation for
buffer impacts related to transportation projects.
TIP U-5507 Page 27 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
f. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No water resources within the project Study Area are considered Navigable Waters under Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act.
g. Mitigation
The City of Charlotte would attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable during project design. At this time, no decisions have been made with
regard to the final design of the project. Strict adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) would
assist in minimizing project impacts. Other potential minimization methods may include:
Decreasing the footprint of the propose project through the reduction of median width, right of
way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction.
Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and wetlands.
Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
Re-establishing vegetation on exposed areas.
Minimizing in-stream activities.
Compensatory mitigation would be required for unavoidable impacts to waters of the US after all
appropriate avoidance and minimization has been incorporated. The USACE and NCDWQ would decide
if mitigation is required for impacts associated with the construction of the preferred alternative. If
mitigation is required, the City of Charlotte would investigate if potential onsite stream and wetland
opportunities are available. If onsite mitigation is not feasible, mitigation would be provided through a
mitigation bank or in-lieu fee payment to the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP).
h. Endangered Species Act Protected Species
Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended, any action to adversely
affect a species classified as federally protected is subject to review by the United State Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Plants and animals with Federal classifications of Threatened or Endangered are
protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are also a
priority of the USFWS but are not protected under the ESA. Species listed as Threatened or Endangered
by the State (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program) are afforded limited State protection under the
North Carolina State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the USFWS databases were reviewed for
known occurrences for protected species in Mecklenburg County (Table 13). There are four federally
endangered species found in the county, Carolina heelsplitter, smooth coneflower, Schweinitz’s
sunflower, and Michaux’s sumac.
TIP U-5507 Page 28 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
TABLE 13 Federally Protected Species in Mecklenburg County
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
Status *
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E No No Effect
Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower E No No Effect
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower E Yes No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E No No Effect
* E: Listed Endangered – A taxon “in danger of extinction through all of a significant portion of its
range”
Surveys were conducted to identify individuals or suitable habitat of listed species within the project
Study Area. The NRTR (October 2012) documents species descriptions, their required habitats, and
findings of the species surveys. Suitable habitat does not exist within the Study Area for the Carolina
heelsplitter, smooth coneflower, or Michaux’s sumac. A review of the NCNHP database, January 22,
2012, also indicated no known occurrences of these three species within one mile of the Study Area.
The USFWS requested a survey be conducted during the appropriate survey window for Schweinitz’s
sunflower due to the close proximity of known occurrences (found within 1.3 miles of the project site)
and on the same soils type found within the Study Area (Cecil sandy clay loam). Surveys were focused in
and around the intact forested area in the southeastern portion of the Study Area. No individuals were
identified.
The NRTR concluded that the project would have no effect on the federally listed species. The USFWS
concurred “that the proposed project would have ‘no effect‘ on federally listed species or designated
critical habitat” in a letter dated October 31, 2012 located in Appendix C.
i. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle is federally protected through the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) which
prohibits anyone, with out a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles,
including their parts, nests, or eggs. A desktop-GIS assessment utilizing 2007 color aerial imagery was
conducted within the Study Area and nearby vicinity. No large nesting or roosting trees or open bodies
of water for potential feeding sources were found within a mile of the Study Area. Additionally, the
review of the NCNHP database indicates no known occurrences of this species within one mile of the
Study Area. The proposed project should have no effect on the bald eagle.
j. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of September 22, 2010 the USFWS lists one Candidate species for Mecklenburg County, the Georgia
aster, for which minimal habitat is preset in the project Study Area. A review of the NCNHP records
database on May 1, 2012 reveals no known occurrences of Georgia aster within one mile of the project
Study Area.
Impacts to protected species are not anticipated due to no known occurrences of federally threatened
and endangered species within the Study Area. While secondary land use changes may occur as a result
TIP U-5507 Page 29 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
of this project, the project is not anticipated to have an indirect effect on federally-protected species. A
concurrence determination from the USFWS is located in Appendix C.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Compliance Guidelines
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulation for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take
into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory
Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
A historic architecture survey pertaining to structures and districts worth preserving in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act was conducted by an architectural historian in
January 2012. A Historic Architecture Report (HAR) was produced which includes an inventory of
structures located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The HAR identified seven structures and
one cemetery within the APE:
House (12901 Eastfield Road, MK 3141);
House (6621 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3142);
House (5935 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3143);
House (5715 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3144);
House (5601 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3145);
House (6300 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3147);
House (6400 Prosperity Church Road, MK 3148); and
Prosperity Presbyterian Church Cemetery (MK 3146).
All structures within the APE were evaluated for National Register eligibility, and the architectural
historian concluded that none of the structures within the APE were eligible. On February 10, 2012, the
HAR was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (NC HPO) to notify them of the results of
the survey. In a letter dated March 5, 2012, NC HPO concurred with the findings that the identified
properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and that the
construction of the project would have no effect on historic properties. A copy of this letter is located in
Appendix D.
3. Archaeological Resources
A reconnaissance level archaeological survey was preformed in January 2012 and an archaeological
report was submitted to NC HPO on February 28, 2012 for the Study Area. The report noted one
prehistoric archaeological site (31MK1113) within the APE. Site 31MK1113 contained no significant
TIP U-5507 Page 30 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
archaeological remains and was recommended not eligible for the NRHP. On March 8, 2012, NC HPO
provided a letter stating that they did not request an archaeological investigation for the project.
In addition to the identified archaeological site noted above, several marked 19th to 20th century graves
were identified in the Prosperity Presbyterian Church Cemetery within the APE. The archaeological
report stated there is the potential for additional unmarked graves both within and adjacent to the
visible cemetery boundaries. The cemetery was not considered eligible for the NRHP and the preferred
alternative is located west of the existing cemetery. Any ground disturbance adjacent to the cemetery
would be protected by a variety of North Carolina General Statues (G.S.), including G.S. 14-148 (Defacing
or desecrating grave sites), 14-149 (Desecrating, plowing over or covering up graves; desecrating human
remains), Chapter 65, Article 12, Part 4 (Removal of Graves), and Chapter 70, Article 3 (The Unmarked
Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act).
C. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources
1. Section 4(f) Resources
The U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 included a special provision, Section 4(f),
which stipulated that the Federal Highway Administration and other DOT agencies cannot approve the
use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and
private historical sites unless the following conditions apply:
There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and
The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from that
use.
No City, County, or Federal scenic/recreational/natural areas exist within the Study Area. Mecklenburg
County parks including the Mallard Creek Community Park, Clark’s Creek Greenway NW and the Clarke
Creek District Park (proposed) are located within one mile of the Study Area. No direct impacts to public
lands and scenic, recreational, and state natural areas are anticipated.
2. Section 6(f) Resources
No properties purchased or improved using Section 6(f) (of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965) funds are located within the Study Area. Thus, no Section 6(f) properties would be affected by
the project.
D. Community Impact Assessment
The following is an abridged version of the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) for TIP Project U-5507.
A copy of the entire unabridged CIA is available for review in the offices of the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation located at 1
Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601, telephone 919-707-6000.
TIP U-5507 Page 31 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
1. Existing Land Use
The proposed project is located in one of Charlotte’s fast-growing areas, influenced by the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC), University Research Park, and Uptown Charlotte. A variety of single-family
home subdivisions and two retail shopping centers (strip malls) dominate the landscape between
the future I-485 and Eastfield Road. There is a blend of recently constructed subdivisions and
established neighborhoods, a few scattered single-family residences, individual businesses, two
churches, and undeveloped land in the Study Area.
2. Key Community Characteristics
a. Geographic Location
The project is located in the northeastern portion of Mecklenburg County, within the Charlotte
metropolitan area. The Study Area is located midway between I-77 and I-85 and north of proposed I-
485, which is currently under construction.
b. Demographics
A Demographic Study Area (DSA) was defined with census tracts to encompass the entire area within
the influence of the NW Arc project (Figure 13). The population of the DSA increased considerably
between 2000 and 2010. As shown in Table 14, this rate of growth is substantially higher than
Mecklenburg County or the State of North Carolina which speaks to the number of new residential
developments in the area.
Table 14 Population Trends for State, County, and Demographic Study Area (2000 – 2010)
2000 2010 Change Percent Change
North Carolina 8,049,313 9,535,483 1,486,170 18.46%
Mecklenburg County 695,454 919,628 224,174 32.23%
Demographic Study Area 1,848 5,463 3,615 195.62%
Source: 2010 US Census
Approximately half (55.4 percent) of those living in the DSA identified themselves as white in the 2010
U.S. Census. In comparison, this percentage is similar to Mecklenburg County (55.3 percent) and slightly
lower than that of the state (68.5 percent). The percentage of those who identify themselves as a
minority population in the DSA is also equivalent to Mecklenburg County as a whole.
Those who identified themselves to be of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin in the 2010 U.S. Census
comprise 10 percent of the population of the DSA. This percentage is slightly lower than that of
Mecklenburg County and slightly higher than the state, 12 and 8 percent, respectively.
The approximately 22-acre Forest Park MHC is located within the proposed corridor for the NW Arc. The
residents of the Forest Park MHC are predominantly Hispanic or Latino and likely include low-income
households; therefore, the community was identified as meeting Environmental Justice criteria.
TIP U-5507 Page 32 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
The 2010 median household income for the DSA is higher than the median for the county and the state.
Similarly, the percentage of the DSA population below the poverty level is lower than the percentage for
the county and state population. Field observations identified two areas on the west side of existing
Prosperity Church Road (Census Tract 55.09) that may have low-income tenants; Forest Park MHC
(located near the center of the DSA) and two duplex units (located immediately north of Future I-485 in
the southern portion of the DSA).
c. Business Activity and Employment Centers
The Mecklenburg County and City of Charlotte economic base consists of many components, including
health services, education, financial, infrastructure, and public administration. Services and retail trade
are the two largest industries in Mecklenburg County, according to the Charlotte Regional Partnership.
There are two retail shopping centers in the Study Area, clustered around the Prosperity Church
Road/Ridge Road intersection and Eastfield Road intersection.
There are a number of large employers within three to twenty miles outside the Study Area. Examples
include the University Research Park, University City (including UNCC), and Uptown Charlotte. Major
employers in Mecklenburg County such as Bank of America and Harris Teeter, have locations within the
Study Area.
The current number of employees in the Study Area is estimated to be 93 persons. The employment
projections for Mecklenburg County and the Study Area are shown in Table 15.
Table 15 Employment Projections
2015
%
Growth
from
‘08
2025
%
Growth
from
‘15
2035
%
Growth
from
‘25
Mecklenburg
County
745,100 22% 911,500 22% 1,065,200 17%
Project Study
Area
125 34% 292 134% 429 47%
The employment projections indicate the Study Area population will grow at a faster rate than
Mecklenburg County. Employment growth in the Study Area is larger than Mecklenburg County for
several reasons. The majority of developable land is primarily planned for high intensity mixed-uses.
The new mixed-use developments include plans for new higher intensity office and retail space. Given
the small scale of the Prosperity Village area, the planned mixed-use developments would likely attract a
larger share of new employment growth than currently exists. Development of higher intensity uses,
along with the influx of new employees, would likely accelerate once construction of I-485 is complete.
d. Public facilities, Schools, and Institutions
There are no County or Municipal public facilities within the Study Area. There are two churches in or
near the Study Area (Figure 3). The Prosperity Presbyterian Church near the southern project terminus
was established in 1789. The original church burned, was rebuilt in 1972, and includes meeting space
TIP U-5507 Page 33 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
and church offices. The adjacent cemetery with more than 100 graves was established in 1788 and
closed to internment in 1988. Alignments for the NW Arc were designed to avoid the church, cemetery
and fellowship hall building. The CrossWay Community Church on existing Prosperity Church Road north
of the proposed NW Arc opened in 2002. The existing roadway is already improved along the church
property frontage.
e. Present and Future Zoning
Land development throughout the Study Area is regulated by local government ordinances, subdivision
regulations, and flood regulations. With the Charlotte metro area experiencing significant population
and employment growth over the past decade, the City of Charlotte has taken a proactive approach in
adopting several aggressive land use and transportation plans aimed at directing growth and
development. The City of Charlotte’s General Development Policies Plan (GDP), updated in 2007, is a set
of broad policies to guide future land development and redevelopment. It provides guidance for
creating and updating zoning and subdivision ordinances and regulation.
The primary growth and development guidelines for the Prosperity Village area are included in the City
of Charlotte’s 2010 Centers, Corridors, and Wedges Growth Framework Plan. The Centers, Corridors,
and Wedges Growth Framework Plan serves as an overarching policy for organizing and guiding growth
and development. However, relative to land use decision making, the plan defers to applicable small
area plans. For the Prosperity Village area, the applicable small area plan is the 1999 Prosperity Church
Road Villages Plan.
f. Land Use and Development Plans
The Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan sets a clear vision for future land use and development in the
Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA). The proposed project would support the development of a
pedestrian-oriented grid street network and compact, mixed-use, urban villages, as envisioned by the
Villages Plan. The proposed project also includes bike lanes, wide sidewalks, on-street parking, and
provides an opportunity to implement development guidelines related to circulation and open space,
buildings, and site development specified in the Villages Plan.
Future land use in the Study Area is expected to be consistent with the Villages Plan (Figure 4). The
Study Area is located in a fast-growing area of Charlotte. City of Charlotte planners anticipate growth
and development to be driven by completion of I-485. Other regional influences include the anticipated
completion of the North Corridor Commuter Rail Line and continued population growth and
development in the nearby Town of Huntersville.
g. Transportation Improvement Plans
The proposed project would create a thoroughfare roadway network to complement existing and future
roadway plans for the area. The project was originally based on recommendations in the Northeast
District Plan, adopted by Charlotte City Council (1995) and the Mecklenburg Board of County
Commissioners (1996). It was further detailed in the Prosperity Church Road Villages Plan, adopted by
the Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners in March 1999. These are described in more
detail in Section II.E.
TIP U-5507 Page 34 February 2013
Prosperity Village Northwest Thoroughfare Extension Environmental Assessment
A split-diamond interchange connecting future I-485 to Prosperity Church Road is currently under
construction. The unique split-diamond interchange with service road system “expands [the]
opportunity for coordinated, mixed-use development; traffic dispersed among three pedestrian-oriented
streets with three bridge crossings; [and] provides greater connectivity across I-485” (Char-
Meck 1999). The proposed project completes the NW Arc of the I-485 interchange.
h. Natural Resources
The Study Area contains three jurisdiction streams draining to Clarks Creek and Clarke Creek. The
preferred alternative would cross only one stream resulting in approximately 64 feet of impact. There
are no wild and scenic rivers located in Mecklenburg County. The project corridor is located in the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. There are no designated Water Supply waters or High Quality